[elysium-developers] Re: elysium-developers digest, Vol 1 #24 - 11 msgs

[Rogelio M. S. Jr. <ro...@ev...>]

> > Why don't we use ASH's (Application Specific Handlers)?
> > Isn't that the way it is done on XOK?
>
> As the solution to what?
>

Inerrupt handling. But then we still have to see how to run the interrupt handler.
In its own task or within the context of the inerrupted  task. We currently use the
former scheme right?

> > Can we use the I/O permission map to control access to io ports?
>
> That's the plan. Each address space will have it's own I/O permissions.
>
>

I see. That also means a TSS for each address space.

>
> > Can we do capabilities the way it was done in Amoeba?
>
> What do you mean? Securing them by means of encryption?
>

Yes and more. Revocation would simply involve changing a random number.
Like:
      struct cap {
   int own_pid;
   int obj_id;
   int rights;
   long check; /*random number which is a copy of random number stored in protected
object*/

Revocations would be simpler this way.
}

>
>
>
> I can't see why it shouldn't be 'exo-ish'. The primary exo principle is
> that the system shouldn't enforce any abstractions that aren't strictly
> necessary for protection. If the kernel can make sure that processes are
> still protected from each other without using multiple address spaces I
> see no reason not to. On the other hand I can't see the benefits of
> mapping all *physical* memory into one address space.
>

I Agree.