[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Position paper
From: |
Neal H. Walfield |
Subject: |
Re: Position paper |
Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2007 23:58:57 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Wanderlust/2.10.1 (Watching The Wheels) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.6 (Marutamachi) APEL/10.6 Emacs/21.4 (i386-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI) |
At Wed, 10 Jan 2007 23:36:54 +0100,
Pierre THIERRY wrote:
> Scribit Neal H. Walfield dies 10/01/2007 hora 20:20:
> > The application requests the schedule which the resource manager
> > considers in light of the current policy configuration. When it is
> > not longer possible to meet the requested schedule, the resource
> > manager will send the application a fault when it is next scheduled to
> > run.
>
> In the general case, isn't this an opportunity to create covert
> channels? I had understood from previous discussions (here or on the
> Coyotos list) that application should in general not be aware of
> system-wide information such as memory pressure because of this issue.
>
> Of course, I understand there are exceptions. I'm happy that my video
> player is able to detect how much frames it drops because of scheduling
> difficulties, and suggest me to solve the external problem while it
> stops to play.
Sure. If we get to point where the least expensive attack (and that
is, I think, what attackers are looking for) is via covert channels,
I'll feel that we'll have really accomplished something.
Neal