On Sun, 8 Nov 2015 10:00:37 AM Rohan McLeod wrote:
Russell Coker wrote:
A microkernel OS would probably be a good option.
Russell I am quite surprised to hear you suggest this, as it would seem to eliminate: -obviously Windows; but also Linux leaving only QNX from the group of OS's mentioned . I have come to associate your name with SELinux a byword for, security and stability .Is it the need for a real-time OS in such applications rather than the requirement,
Real-time isn't the main issue here. While some things in car computers require hard real time the vast majority don't. In a car of the future you might expect computers to have hard real-time (engine control), soft real-time (autonomous driving where you only have to reliably beat human reactions) and no real time (car entertainment). Micro-kernel OSs allow least privilege in "kernel" code which is a good thing for security. We already have the Debian HURD project, adapting SE Linux access controls to HURD wouldn't be THAT difficult by the standards of SE Linux development (IE it's easier than some of the things that have already been done). I'm surprised at your surprise. I've mentioned the benefits of micro-kernel OSs in more than a few lectures about SE Linux - including the one I gave this month. The design of the Linux kernel (and all monolithic kernels) limits what can be done with security. The design of some microkernel systems (EG everything based on the "BSD Single Server") has all the same issues. You could possibly consider the Xen kernel to be a micro-kernel if you look at it a certain way and don't take "micro" too literally. It does give some benefits in that regard.
for security and stability which is the basis for this suggestion ? Curiously there seems to be a convergence here with such science-fiction proposals as 'fly-by-fibre' which envisage the replacement of the weight and topological complexity of the aircraft wiring harness with a single ultra-high performance fibre optic net work and
Not a single fiber! I believe that the consensus among pilots is that a twin engine plane is a lot better than a single engine plane as a single failure is less likely to cause a bad result. For things that have life or death issues you need at least twin redundancy and preferrably better. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/