"SandBox Mode" Proposed For The Linux Kernel To Improve Memory Safety

[phoronix]

Phoronix: "SandBox Mode" Proposed For The Linux Kernel To Improve Memory Safety

While there is already the work underway on allowing the Rust programming language within the Linux kernel in part to leverage its memory safety potential, a proposal was sent out this morning for a new "SandBox Mode" for the Linux kernel to also increase the memory safety of C code within the kernel...

https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-SandBox-Mode-RFC

[Jabberwocky]

Lizard squad objects to this proposal.

Seriously: This reminds me of Counter-Strike cheaters installing hardware with known vulnerabilities to gain access to modify memory and avoid anti-cheat. Do we know if Microsoft has found a solution to this or is it still possible in the latest version of Windows?

[juarezr]

Phoronix: "SandBox Mode" Proposed For The Linux Kernel To Improve Memory Safety

..., a proposal was sent out this morning for a new "SandBox Mode" for the Linux kernel to also increase the memory safety of C code within the kernel...

https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-SandBox-Mode-RFC

<fun>
Aka micro-kernel for monolithic Linux? Or a "better Linux"?
</fun>

[Volta]

<fun>
Aka micro-kernel for monolithic Linux? Or a "better Linux"?
</fun>

It has nothing to do with microkernel. Does it make Linux better? Depends on situation.

[ayumu]

Microkernel, multiserver, capability-centric is the better design. We've known this for a while.

No, Linux can't "evolve" into such a system, the spaghetti call graph mess that it is, with millions of LoCs now.

It would have to be rewritten and there's systems that are further along with a correct design (e.g. genode).

Perhaps funding sources should recognize this and re-focus their efforts appropriately. Stop wasting money and developer time in a system architecture that's known to be a dead end.

[Brittle2]

<fun>
Aka micro-kernel for monolithic Linux? Or a "better Linux"?
</fun>

only if better linux mean with more overhead

[Brittle2]

Microkernel, multiserver, capability-centric is the better design. We've known this for a while.
.

so better design that no micro kernel has any meaningful marketshare nor performance compared with linux, nor it can have better performance advantage againt linux

[kpedersen]

Sounds a bit like Quake III's Q3VM.

[TheMightyBuzzard]

Show me benchmarks proving it adds less than half a percent of overhead and let me enable/disable it via sysctl for at least six years, otherwise it's a big no.

[bug77]

Microkernel, multiserver, capability-centric is the better design. We've known this for a while.

No, Linux can't "evolve" into such a system, the spaghetti call graph mess that it is, with millions of LoCs now.

It would have to be rewritten and there's systems that are further along with a correct design (e.g. genode).

Perhaps funding sources should recognize this and re-focus their efforts appropriately. Stop wasting money and developer time in a system architecture that's known to be a dead end.

Yeah, the design is indisputably inferior. Sure it has seen a bit of adoption with servers and PCs. On some supercomputers. Very very few home appliances use it. It's also used in an obscure smartphone operating systems. Such a flawed design is clearly not going anywhere.

/s