What is this in response to? GP never mentioned file interfaces.
How so? I can see the limited access control in Linux is an issue, and for this reason augmented security MAC (Mandatory Access Control) controls exist like SELinux and AppArmor.
But I don't see how the nature of everything being a file is a vulnerability in itself.
I'd be happy to learn how though.
In traditional unix-like systems, file descriptors are very close to capabilities. But the global filesystem namespace is a source of ambient authority.
There are a couple of ways to fix this issue: fine-grained per-process namespaces like Plan 9, so that the filesystem’s authority can be attenuated as necessary, so it becomes more like a capability. Or eliminate absolute pathnames from the API, so you have to use functions like openat() to get an fd relative to an existing fd.
I hear some of them are used to manage embedded components in GPOS systems. Oh, wait…!
And furthermore, OS research is not only about building Linux alternatives. There are a lot of operating systems that have a much narrower focus than full-blown multi-tenant GPOS. So building holistic systems with a narrower focus is a much more achievable goal.
> As for the components, at least their interfaces are standardized
That's not true once you step into SoC land. Components are running walled-garden firmware and binary blobs that are undocumented. There's just no incentive to provide a developer platform if no one gives a shit about holistic OSes in the first place.