[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: seL4, L4.sec and coyotos mess
From: |
Tom Bachmann |
Subject: |
Re: seL4, L4.sec and coyotos mess |
Date: |
Fri, 07 Jul 2006 19:53:22 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mail/News 1.5 (X11/20060403) |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Gustavo Romero wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There seems to be several L4 successors with security in mind.
Yes.
> Is there
> a comparison between them in any place?
I'm not aware of any.
> Coyotos web said there is some
> similarities with l4.sec. Again... is there any place with a comparison?
> Can somebody help see the light? :)
>
You could read what is available of information (sadly, the L4
successors aren't developed in such an open fashion like coyotos):
http://www.coyotos.org/docs/ukernel/spec.html
http://l4hq.org/docs/manuals/l4_sec_20051019.pdf and
http://os.inf.tu-dresden.de/papers_ps/kauer-diplom.pdf
http://i30www.ira.uka.de/teaching/coursedocuments/105/l4ng-apr28.pdf
> This may be not the right list to make these questions but... I think
> some of you had done this comparison between kernels to be able to
> choose one of them as a basis for the hurd.
>
First of all, you should know that no kernel has been chosen yet.
The reasons for concentrating most on coyotos are more pragmatically,
AIUI: it is hoped coyotos will be usable sooner, coyotos is developed
more openly, and jonathan has a lot of experiance wrt capability systems
he offered to share.
- --
- -ness-
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFErp+SvD/ijq9JWhsRAoi7AJ4pOqUvyjeVmsBABoRop+RzLt+s+ACeOsQE
sPMuiTCX37wRy/6vOr4/q/8=
=0wQ4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----