Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 11:30:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Kenneth Wayne Culver <culverk@wam.umd.edu> To: Gustavo V G C Rios <kernel@lince.tdnet.com.br> Cc: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Is traditional unixes kernel really stable ? Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0004071128590.23186-100000@rac3.wam.umd.edu> In-Reply-To: <38EDD209.421EF9B0@tdnet.com.br>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I don't think that's quite true. I've seen microkernels crash because of bad drivers. I think no matter what, even in a microkernel the drivers have to interface directly to the kernel. I could be wrong but I thought that in a microkernel, drivers were loaded as kernel modules. ================================================================= | Kenneth Culver | FreeBSD: The best OS around. | | Unix Systems Administrator | ICQ #: 24767726 | | and student at The | AIM: muythaibxr | | The University of Maryland, | Website: (Under Construction) | | College Park. | http://www.wam.umd.edu/~culverk/| ================================================================= On Fri, 7 Apr 2000, Gustavo V G C Rios wrote: > Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > > > Some archs (such as i386) allow the OS to set page protections and > > io permission bitmaps that effectively can pretect against problems > > with drivers touching incorrect IO ranges, however... > > > > > > > > Worse yet: What about hardware buggy devices? > > > This could case the entiry system to crash, isn't it ? > > > > Yes, incorrectly programmed hardware either by firmware (on > > chip/board) or by drivers can cause crashes and hardware damage. > > > > That's the point! > Why not a different approach ? > Why not starting a microkernel arch? The microkernel would basically do > just feel tasks, like: > > IPC: managing and routing messages. > Process scheduling. > First level interrupt handling. > > > All other tasks would run in like any other user process, like a fyle > system daemon, process daemon , internet daemon (not inetd), and, of > course, device drivers programs. > > This design, would not let a system crash due to device drivers problems > or even bad hardware desgin. > > What all you think about that ? > > > -- > If you're happy, you're successful. > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.21.0004071128590.23186-100000>