Message-ID: <446B4B35.508@tut.by>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 19:11:33 +0300
From: Stas Myasnikov <myst@tut.by>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (Windows/20060308)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: linux cbon <linuxcbon@yahoo.fr>
CC: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: replacing X Window System !
References: <20060517154926.35649.qmail@web26606.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <20060517154926.35649.qmail@web26606.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 878
Lines: 26

Hi,

>>> We dont need 2 kernels like today.
>>> All "dangerous code" should be in kernel.
>> The kernel is even more privileged than the X server
>> so putting
>> dangerous code there is counterproductive. Security
>> comes about through
>> intelligent design decisions, compartmentalisation,
>> isolation of
>> security critical code segments and the like. If you
>> merely put shit in
>> a different bucket you still have a bad smell.
> With "dangerous code" I meant : code which *could be
> potentially dangerous* like accessing directly the
> hardware etc.
> That code should be only in the kernel.

It's your opinion only.

Stas
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/