l4-hurd
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Challenge: Find potential use cases for non-trivial confinement


From: Pierre THIERRY
Subject: Re: Challenge: Find potential use cases for non-trivial confinement
Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 14:18:12 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403

Scribit Bas Wijnen dies 03/05/2006 hora 14:06:
> An example of this is that Linux prevents mounting a floppy, even if
> the user has full access to /dev/fd/0.

Which I think is nonsense. If you don't want me to access it, don't give
me access to it in the first place.

> So it seems this requires CPU scheduling donations.  In fact, I
> suppose that would be possible, too: The students trust the teacher
> enough to give their scheduling capability, so that can be used by the
> service.  Of course they give it in a way that they can revoke it
> later.

That doesn't address the DoS vulnerability.

And I don't think that's sensible: a student should give scheduler
capabilities to a service running for all students to be able to run the
service for itself. That seems very complicated when compared to the
constructor pattern.

Comparatively,
Nowhere man
-- 
address@hidden
OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]