So throwing out there that the numbered items are copied directly out of what I'm replying to.
> Certainly if a compromised disk driver exposes a lot more data, not so much if you compromise your video driver. Compromising either in a monolithic kernel provides the same level of access. Strong isolation boundaries strictly limit risk.
About the only part of the video drivers that runs in kernel space even on monolithic kernels these days are the drivers for the GPU's MMU. You screw that up and you're right back to where you started, corrupting random memory without regard for protection boundaries regardless of where that code lives. Everything else runs in user space, but not in an isolated process like on a ukernel, but directly in user process code, more like an exokernel.
> Driver support is always an issue. I don't see the problem.
My point underneath was comparing to other paravirtualized kernels was a best case comparison for ukernels, and zones/jails/containers has added a new more performant option for them that doesn't look as good for ukernels.
> Certainly if a compromised disk driver exposes a lot more data, not so much if you compromise your video driver. Compromising either in a monolithic kernel provides the same level of access. Strong isolation boundaries strictly limit risk.
About the only part of the video drivers that runs in kernel space even on monolithic kernels these days are the drivers for the GPU's MMU. You screw that up and you're right back to where you started, corrupting random memory without regard for protection boundaries regardless of where that code lives. Everything else runs in user space, but not in an isolated process like on a ukernel, but directly in user process code, more like an exokernel.
> Driver support is always an issue. I don't see the problem.
My point underneath was comparing to other paravirtualized kernels was a best case comparison for ukernels, and zones/jails/containers has added a new more performant option for them that doesn't look as good for ukernels.