[Info-vax] Intel proposal to simplify x86-64

[Simon Clubley]

On 2023-06-07, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
>
> Well. If you want full isolation between different parts of the kernel, 
> going fully microkernel and message passing and all that, it's perfectly 
> doable on pretty much any hardware. It's just that in general, whenever 
> it has been done, performance always suffer. Which is why pretty much 
> noone is doing it. And it's not because of issues in the hardware that 
> it suffers. It's just that you can't avoid a lot more overhead when 
> doing things this way. A lot of data copying first and foremost.
>

QNX.

> I guess Honeywell did, but can't say they were overly successful. MACH 
> also did, but that part seems to not live on anywhere.
>

We have long moved past the point where absolute speed is the primary
driver in software design. Today, the focus should be on safer computing,
even at the expense of some overhead. To do otherwise is utterly
irresponsible in today's world IMHO.

BTW, note that I said "safer" computing. I did not say "safe" computing.

There is no such thing as absolutely safe computing, especially when the
attacker is determined enough and resourced enough. The goal is to put
enough barriers in the way of most attackers that they cannot achieve
their goals and to make it expensive and painful for those attackers
who work for nation state authorities.

Simon.

-- 
Simon Clubley, clubley at remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.