Re:Hvdos, a simple DOS emulator based on the OS X Hypervisor...
by mschuster91 on Monday January 05, 2015 @02:19AM
(#8837709)
20 kernels... well, not every kernel needs to be a full kernel. Maybe tiny microkernels?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Hvdos, a simple DOS emulator based on the OS X Hypervisor...
by 0x0 on Monday January 05, 2015 @04:03AM
(#8837958)
But, you'd need a complete implementation of the OSX kernel and library API surface, because that's what an OSX app expects. If you're going to try to re-use the host kernel via a virtualCPU backdoor, you're not really virtualizing anything anymore and could just stick with the unix process model?
Re:Hvdos, a simple DOS emulator based on the OS X Hypervisor...
by mschuster91 on Monday January 05, 2015 @05:07AM
(#8838085)
Not exactly, because using a separate CPU with a shared kernel can very effectively isolate processes from each other which is not possible with the unix process model. It would take either a serious kernel bug or a bug in the CPU hardware/microcode to cross the barrier in case of an exploit e.g. in a browser.
Re:Hvdos, a simple DOS emulator based on the OS X Hypervisor...
by 0x0 on Monday January 05, 2015 @06:50AM
(#8838314)
I'd rather see the sandbox model for process isolation improved, instead of trying to re-invent it from scratch with a virtual CPU that has backdoor traps for calling into the original kernel for almost everything. I'd think the attack surface would be about the same for that, and any kind of virtualization that is so lightweight that it reuses most of the host kernel. That's exactly the problem that the x86/x86_64 memory protection and CPU ring levels were intended to solve! :) Plus you won't have the stress of having to virtualize a separate network card, file system and memory map.
Re:Hvdos, a simple DOS emulator based on the OS X Hypervisor...
by wmf on Monday January 05, 2015 @11:02PM
(#8842853)
I encourage both of you to check out picoprocesses: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/drawbridge/