9 Jul
2018
9 Jul
'18
8:51 a.m.
On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 1:43 AM Bakul Shah <bakul(a)bitblocks.com> wrote:
[snip some very interesting and insightful comments]
Mill ideas are very much worth exploring. It will be possible
to build highly secure systems with it -- if it ever gets
sufficiently funded and built! IMHO layers of mapping as with
virtualization/containerization are not really needed for
better security or isolation.
Sure, with emphasis on that "if it ever gets sufficiently funded and
built!" part. :-) It sounds cool, but what to do on extant hardware?
Similarly with CHERI: they change nearly everything (including the
hardware).
2. Is mmap() *really* the best we can do for mapping
arbitrary resources
Sure, but is it the *best* we can do? Subjectively, the interface is pretty
ugly, and we're forced into a multi-level store. Maybe that's OK; it sure
seems like we haven't come up with anything better. But I wonder whether
that's because we've found some local maxima in our pursuit of
functionality vs cost, or because we're so stuck in the model of
multi-level stores and mapping objects into address spaces that we can't
see beyond it. And it sure would be nice if the ergonomics of the
programming interface were better.
into an address space?
I think this is fine. Even remote objects mmapping should
work!
3. A more generalized message passing system would be
cool. Something
where
I'm going to read that paper, but it's at least a couple of decades old
(one of the authors is affiliated with DEC).
- Dan C.
you could send a message with a payload somewhere
in a synchronous way
would be nice (perhaps analogous to channels). VMS-style mailboxes would
have been neat.
Erlang. Carl Hewitt's Actor model has this.
[1]
http://tierra.aslab.upm.es/~sanz/cursos/DRTS/AlphaRtDistributedKernel.pdf