[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Marcus Brinkmann
Subject: Re: Challenge: Find potential use cases for non-trivial confinement
Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 14:28:28 +0200
User-agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.7 (Sanjō) APEL/10.6 Emacs/21.4 (i486-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI)

At Mon, 01 May 2006 07:23:23 -0400,
"Jonathan S. Shapiro" <address@hidden> wrote:
> Marcus, my question was not asked for the purpose of confirming that
> "appropriate" IPCs are okay. It was asked for the purpose of
> illustrating that the set of legal operations in your system supports
> *all* of the allegedly immoral scenarios that constructors support.

I am sorry, but I might still not have understood your question

I have already conceeded before, in a separate thread, that a user
could build their own meta-constructor and constructor (and even space
bank) that support non-trivial confinement, as long as you are willing
to rely on these implementations.  In the EROS/Coyotos case, the
implementation is provided by the system, so this eliminates one level
of indirection.

Is this what you mean?

I am really confused, because only one of two things can be true:
Operating system is needed to do what you want to do, or it is not.
If it is needed, then why can you do everything in my model that you
can do in your model?  If it is not needed, why should we include it?

There must be something in your question that I do not understand.


reply via email to

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