Hi,
Thanks for the feedback. You are absolutely right and as I mentioned
before, I came to realize that it would be hard to contain malicious code.
Nevertheless, honest mistakes shouldn't be a big problem. Currently,
if you write a kernel module, you can cause havoc and the only thing
preventing
2013-11-11 19:44 keltezéssel, Matthias Schniedermeyer írta:
> On 11.11.2013 14:05, Shahbaz Youssefi wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 8:06 PM, Matthias Schniedermeyer
>> wrote:
>>> I don't see a way around "borders" (Papers please), otherwise you can't
>>> reject things you don't want, you have t
On 11.11.2013 14:05, Shahbaz Youssefi wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 8:06 PM, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
> > I don't see a way around "borders" (Papers please), otherwise you can't
> > reject things you don't want, you have to check if that something that
> > is to be done is allowed. For e.
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 8:06 PM, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
> I don't see a way around "borders" (Papers please), otherwise you can't
> reject things you don't want, you have to check if that something that
> is to be done is allowed. For e.g. you would get around every
> permission-check, bec
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 04:03:36PM +0100, Shahbaz Youssefi 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):
Am 10.11.2013 17:24, schrieb Shahbaz Youssefi:
> Not sure if I understood you (or you understood me). We don't throw
> away anything. Only difference would be instead of generating a trap
> to call a function in the kernel, we can just call it and have the
> hardware take care of privileges. The "t
Not sure if I understood you (or you understood me). We don't throw
away anything. Only difference would be instead of generating a trap
to call a function in the kernel, we can just call it and have the
hardware take care of privileges. The "trap way" is the one that
actually seems hacky! A hack p
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Shahbaz Youssefi 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:/
8 matches
Mail list logo
