Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 12:18:17 +0000 From: Gustavo V G C Rios <kernel@tdnet.com.br> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Is traditional unixes kernel really stable ? Message-ID: <38EDD209.421EF9B0@tdnet.com.br> References: <38ED128C.22C3AA28@tdnet.com.br> <20000406192206.N22104@fw.wintelcom.net> <38ED233E.74716D02@tdnet.com.br> <20000406230234.B4381@fw.wintelcom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?38EDD209.421EF9B0>