On 6 March 2016 at 15:39, <sta...@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote: > * Anselm R Garbe 2016-03-06 14:20 >> On 6 March 2016 at 13:47, robin <robin.a.t.peder...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Microkernels defenitely resonates with the unix philosophy "do one thing >> > and >> > do it well". >> > Having everything, except FUSE and such, in the kernel is doing more than >> > one thing. >> >> IMHO the architectural decision for a monolith (==static linkage) >> often reduces the management bloat of dynamic loading or similar >> "extension" approaches that you end up with in a microkernel >> architecture. > > you have dynamic vs static linkage problematic either way. that's > orthogonal. > > microkernel is for me more about privileges and critical sections. > generally speaking, it definitely sucks less to have by design less > things that can badly go wrong.
I agree, though this is not stricly a problem with monolithic approaches either. In the end you have to trust the process governor to limit the privileges of a process (or thread) to its specification/requirement. If the governor is only one SPOF (monolith) or if there are multiple forks of such a SPOF (microkernel) makes no big difference in the end. If the SPOF has a flaw, the flaw is everywhere, regardless the process model. -Anselm
