Drivers

Here you can discuss ReactOS related topics.

Moderator: Moderator Team

hbelusca
Developer
Posts: 1126
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 10:36 pm
Location: Zagreb, Croatia

Re: Drivers

Post by hbelusca » Sat Aug 30, 2014 3:08 pm

Webunny wrote:I think it is you who should check your sources next time. If you'll go to the wikipedia for that very same 'Hybrid kernel' you'll see the following: "The "hybrid" category is controversial, due to the similarity of hybrid kernels and ordinary monolithic kernels; the term has been dismissed by Linus Torvalds as simple marketing."

I happen to agree with Linus. This 'hybrid kernel' is nothing more than marketing-talk to describe something which in essence is still a monolithic kernel.
The separation between hybrid kernel and monolithic kernel is not totally clear. See the third part of the picture at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monolithic_kernel , and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_kernel#NT_kernel where they give some arguments about that.

fred02
Posts: 551
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 5:54 pm

Re: Drivers

Post by fred02 » Sat Aug 30, 2014 8:59 pm

alexei wrote:Running it in restricted execution environment provided by VM is simpler and more secure.
This presumes that you trust your VM. ;)
alexei wrote:Personally, I don't believe "looking at the code" can guarantee it's safe, especially when the code is huge.
Looking at the code it definitely not enough, one have to understand it.
alexei wrote:Of course, driver running in kernel mode (unless you impolement hypervisor-based watch) has full freedom to make any damage or spy on you. However, most likely it would not expect you tracking its calls to system APIs.
alexei wrote:If MS really care about security, each driver would run in a separate VM, etc.
What you describe is essentially a microkernel architecture. Have a look at Minix3. (There are others, but this one is usable.)
hbelusca wrote:The separation between hybrid kernel and monolithic kernel is not totally clear. See the third part of the picture at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monolithic_kernel , and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_kernel#NT_kernel where they give some arguments about that.
It is monolithic, and Microsoft acknowledge it widely by requiring kernel driver signing. In a secure and reliable system one driver cannot bring down the whole system and would not require more precaution than any other software. Since a "hybrid kernel" obviously does not offer any intrinsic protection what's the point to distinguish it, beside marketing?
Last edited by fred02 on Sat Aug 30, 2014 9:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

erkinalp
Posts: 824
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:55 pm

Re: Drivers

Post by erkinalp » Sat Aug 30, 2014 9:05 pm

I agree with Linus here. There is no such hybrid kernel, Windows NT is more monolithic than most privilege separation, multi-task, multi-user OSes.
-uses Ubuntu+GNOME 3 GNU/Linux
-likes Free (as in freedom) and Open Source Detergents
-favors open source of Windows 10 under GPL2

Webunny
Posts: 1201
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: Drivers

Post by Webunny » Sat Aug 30, 2014 11:34 pm

hbelusca wrote:
Webunny wrote:I think it is you who should check your sources next time. If you'll go to the wikipedia for that very same 'Hybrid kernel' you'll see the following: "The "hybrid" category is controversial, due to the similarity of hybrid kernels and ordinary monolithic kernels; the term has been dismissed by Linus Torvalds as simple marketing."

I happen to agree with Linus. This 'hybrid kernel' is nothing more than marketing-talk to describe something which in essence is still a monolithic kernel.
The separation between hybrid kernel and monolithic kernel is not totally clear. See the third part of the picture at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monolithic_kernel , and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_kernel#NT_kernel where they give some arguments about that.
Indeed, it's not clear, and that's because there is no relevant, distinctive difference between this so called 'hybrid' kernel and a monolithic one. The vast majority of devs working on monolithic kernels (that are not paid employees of MS) agree that it's merely marketing and not some discerning quality. I'll quote one:

"Anyway, the article describes NT's kernel as a "hybrid kernel" sharing architectural concepts or mechanisms with microkernel designs such as "message passing" and "migration of "non-essential" code into user space". This strikes me as rubbish for two reasons:
- In NT messages (IRPs) are used for implementing asynchronous execution, which is essentially an implementation detail and has nothing to do with microkernels. As a matter of fact IRPs are so fragile, that in a sense they achieve an effect opposite to a microkernel.
- All essential subsystems in NT are implemented in the kernel - filesystems, usb, networking, etc. Of course there are components in user space which are considered part of the OS (what isn't in Windows?), but such components are implemented in user space in all OS-es.

The article goes to say that a hybrid kernel like NT's is not to be confused with monolithic kernels that can load modules like Linux. Again, this seems like nonsense to me - the stable driver ABI (and the closed source) has facilitated creating of many drivers outside of the NT kernel tree, but this is not a conceptual difference. The precise technique of loading a driver/module into the kernel doesn't really matter, if the driver shares the same address space and can have access to kernel structures."

mrugiero
Posts: 482
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 9:12 am

Re: Drivers

Post by mrugiero » Sun Aug 31, 2014 4:48 am

Webunny wrote:
Z98 wrote:The market has pretty much made clear that it is not willing to pay for the overhead of properly secure software. As a company, Microsoft needs to make money so it produces software that the market is willing to pay for at a cost the market is willing to bear.
Luckily, we don't have such a requirement! An opportunity for ROS, thus! Let's fill that niche!!j/k, j/k!
No, but we have the requirement of having it finished eventually, and that's why people donate. If people is not willing to pay for that proper security, you won't be getting enough devs for enough time to complete the task. Volunteers usually need food and shelter just as much as employees do, and that means they can't be working for free that much.

PurpleGurl
Posts: 1768
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 5:11 am
Location: USA

Re: Drivers

Post by PurpleGurl » Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:09 am

Webunny wrote:If we are all talking about the same kernel (and as far as I'm aware, there is, indeed, only one. Well... maybe two, since I seem to remember the ESA used also a verified kernel for some of their stuff), then it's extremely unlikely that it would do any good for ROS. To make ROS work 'on top' of that (and then you're security would diminish anyhow, until all that is verified too) the re-work would be gigantic. It would be better to start from scratch, me thinks. Main reason being that that verified kernel is a microkernel, while ROS' kernel is monolithic, just like Windows'.
Yes, I mean L4 or whatever it is called, and I imagine you are right on the rest. I was only throwing out tentative ideas, not suggesting that anyone actually do. That is like what I mentioned on funding. I wasn't saying to do it, just putting ideas out. Still, even if ROS were not forked to create a Windows-like OS on a verified secure platform, ROS code could be followed as a corollary to help influence the direction of the code. At any rate, it is just food for thought and not on topic nor even a current concern. All the talk about forks and distributions should be held off until we at least reach beta. There is still a lot of heavy lifting to be done. Porting, optimizing, slimming, etc., is all better done after having working starting code.

Webunny
Posts: 1201
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: Drivers

Post by Webunny » Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:11 pm

mrugiero wrote:
Webunny wrote:
Z98 wrote:The market has pretty much made clear that it is not willing to pay for the overhead of properly secure software. As a company, Microsoft needs to make money so it produces software that the market is willing to pay for at a cost the market is willing to bear.
Luckily, we don't have such a requirement! An opportunity for ROS, thus! Let's fill that niche!!j/k, j/k!
No, but we have the requirement of having it finished eventually, and that's why people donate. If people is not willing to pay for that proper security, you won't be getting enough devs for enough time to complete the task. Volunteers usually need food and shelter just as much as employees do, and that means they can't be working for free that much.
:roll:

It's highly unlikely you missed the j/k... especially if you responded with the actual quote.

mrugiero
Posts: 482
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 9:12 am

Re: Drivers

Post by mrugiero » Tue Sep 02, 2014 5:01 am

Webunny wrote: :roll:

It's highly unlikely you missed the j/k... especially if you responded with the actual quote.
There is a law for the internet (and any written media) that says very well crafted sarcasm is impossible to tell from actual, absurd, assertions. So, forgive me for making it obvious that you are brilliant at sarcasm, sir.

Webunny
Posts: 1201
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: Drivers

Post by Webunny » Tue Sep 02, 2014 8:22 pm

mrugiero wrote:
Webunny wrote: :roll:

It's highly unlikely you missed the j/k... especially if you responded with the actual quote.
There is a law for the internet (and any written media) that says very well crafted sarcasm is impossible to tell from actual, absurd, assertions. So, forgive me for making it obvious that you are brilliant at sarcasm, sir.
Don't mention it, my dear fellow. As you have presumably (and correctly) noted, flattery works every time with me. 8-)

I just thought it slightly surprising that you failed to note the use of the 'j/k' when you quoted me, because, while my sarcasm may be subtle viewed in the normal way, it's rather explicitly clear when quoted. Especially there and then, where you had to manually break of the quote. But, as minds work, often things are not re-read once one presumes to know what is written there already, so I can only guess this is what happened.

mrugiero
Posts: 482
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 9:12 am

Re: Drivers

Post by mrugiero » Wed Sep 03, 2014 3:12 am

Webunny wrote:But, as minds work, often things are not re-read once one presumes to know what is written there already, so I can only guess this is what happened.
That's what happened indeed.

PurpleGurl
Posts: 1768
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 5:11 am
Location: USA

Re: Drivers

Post by PurpleGurl » Wed Sep 03, 2014 9:12 am

Lets not forget rule #1 nor the topic.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot], Bing [Bot] and 2 guests