News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Fuchsia: Google's modular, capability-based, non-Unix ope... by catern on Sunday September 17, 2017 @09:08PM (#15272682)
Sandboxing isn't a substitute for having your drivers be open source. Even if all drivers were written in safe languages, you'd still have CVEs and still want to fix those CVEs.
Re:Fuchsia: Google's modular, capability-based, non-Unix ope... by quotemstr on Sunday September 17, 2017 @09:22PM (#15272727)
Closed source Linux drivers exist. Open source Windows drivers exist. An unstable kernel ABI is neither necessary nor sufficient a condition for open sourcing drivers.
Re:Fuchsia: Google's modular, capability-based, non-Unix ope... by catern on Sunday September 17, 2017 @09:49PM (#15272818)
True but irrelevant.

The key new "feature" of Fuschia is that its stable ABI makes closed-source drivers easier to write in the short term, relative to Linux. As a result, the vast majority of Fuschia drivers will be closed-source. Don't you agree?

I believe supporting a stable API and closed-source drivers will result in a technically inferior, more complex, less stable kernel. The Linux model of including all the drivers in a single open source codebase, where the drivers can be refactored and improved along with the rest of the kernel, is a genuinely superior way to develop a kernel, which produces a genuinely technically superior product. I just hope Google realizes this before they sink too many millions into Fuschia.

Re:Fuchsia: Google's modular, capability-based, non-Unix ope... by quotemstr on Sunday September 17, 2017 @09:52PM (#15272831)
I think we can at least agree that the proof is in the pudding.
Re:Fuchsia: Google's modular, capability-based, non-Unix ope... by naasking on Monday September 18, 2017 @12:29AM (#15273411)
You seriously think that open source drivers would have fewer CVEs than sandboxed drivers?
Re:Fuchsia: Google's modular, capability-based, non-Unix ope... by catern on Monday September 18, 2017 @10:01AM (#15275977)
How exactly are you going to sandbox your drivers? Run them in user-mode, perhaps? But then you've constructed a microkernel, and no-one uses your system because it's slow.

Anyway, what I said is that sandboxing isn't a substitute for open-sourcing. They are complements, not substitutes.

Re:Fuchsia: Google's modular, capability-based, non-Unix ope... by naasking on Tuesday September 19, 2017 @01:02AM (#15281926)
> But then you've constructed a microkernel, and no-one uses your system because it's slow.

FUD. L4 is the most widely deployed kernel in the world.

> Anyway, what I said is that sandboxing isn't a substitute for open-sourcing.

Given reality, something must substitute for open source drivers. Sandboxing is certainly the obvious choice.

Re:Fuchsia: Google's modular, capability-based, non-Unix ope... by catern on Tuesday September 19, 2017 @10:31AM (#15284915)
>Given reality, something must substitute for open source drivers

Linux is quite real, I assure you.