Re: capabilities / security (was Re: VSTa - First Impressions)

Hi,

David Jeske wrote:
>
> > Tim Newsham wrote:
> > > Jonathon Tidswell wrote:
> > > > Some details on problems of risk management (security):
> > > >
> > > > The problem of availability is sometimes divided into protection against
> > > > denial-of-service (DOS :-) attacks and reliability issues.
> > > > I'll leave reliability aside until VSTa goes commercial :-), but DOS
> > > > attacks are
> > > > normally aimed at limited resources - network, memory, disk, CPU, etc.
> > >
> > > the schedulers tree nature can be used to protect cpu resources. Each
> > > process and its decedents get only their fare share of the cpu.
> > This looks like an nice solution.
>
> My question is, does the current VSTa system allow high-level servers to take
> lots of CPU running the requests of low level clients? If it does, then it
> certainly does not "fairly" share the CPU. QNX has a system for adjusting
> the priority of a server to match the priority of the client whose request
> it's serving. Is something like this worth looking into?

This sounds like something that would need a large scheduler overhaul. I
think going this way we'd also hit issues like whether or not we servers
should reorder their queued clients (I think I'll leave that to someone else
just now :-)).

                        Dave
Received on Wed Dec 14 01:33:56 1994