Re: Linux Kernel Security - Can it ever be 100%

[Paul E Condon <pecondon@peakpeak.com>]

On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 08:58:40PM -0800, Tom wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 11:43:23PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> [great stuff which is absolutely correct]
> 
> However, I "Tom Ballard" have figured it all out.
> The problem with all of computer science is the left hand doesn't know 
> what the right hand is doing.  All of these problems are finite and can 
> be handled in an "a priori" way.  The problem is computer science grew 
> up not knowing that so we pretend we don't immediately know everything 
> and compute in an "a posteori way".
> 
> What I'm talking about is tearing down the concept of a general purpose 
> computer.  The only reason I can't run all my programs in a single 
> memory space and know just exactly what the heck is going to happen is 
> it makes poor economic sense to work that way.
> 
> Consider a SQL Server for example.  For any given schema which will 
> a maximum of contain {N1...Nm} records, I can compute "a priori" the 
> exact disk location of any record.  If memory wasn't so fucking slow 
> and there were plenty of it, we could assemble any image of this very 
> quickly.  All I need is a simple "I/O monster" that does this one fixed 
> task in an "a priori way".
> 
> So the problem is general purpose computers.  We need to be able to 
> produce fixed-function devices in a one-off fashion.
> 
> [This rant is probably full of shit] :-)
> 
  Yes. ;-)

-- 
Paul E Condon           
pecondon@peakpeak.com