On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Shahbaz Youssefi <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear all, > > First, please CC replies to myself. Second, this is an RFC. > > I've been tampering with an idea for some time now and I've done some > research. Finally, I wrote it down here (a terrible place as it turned > out): > > http://shahbaz-youssefi.blogspot.it/2013/11/partially-privileged-applications.html > > and would like to know what you think. This idea requires an > improvement to the CPU architectures to allow unifying kernel and user > spaces and perform privileged instructions based on the location of > the instruction rather than a manually switched mode (or via traps). > > Please, do take a look at the link. I'm far from a kernel expert so > the idea may not be as rainbows and unicorns as it seems to me right > now. But it also may be. In that case, probably we need a push by > well-known people (i.e., Linus) to get the manufacturers to implement > the feature. > > At least from a developer's point of view, with this idea you could > gdb or even valgrind check the drivers in the very least with much > less chance of a kernel oops. How faster can you imagine debugging a > kernel module?
So, we throw away 20 years of OS development and go back to hacky call gates? ;-) > Thanks, > An unfortunate soul who has to deal with buggy kernel modules > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to [email protected] > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- Thanks, //richard -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
