> No good ones at this point. The user-space kernel is larger than a native
> one, but I haven't added much code to it, so I imagine that I've done some
> stupid code-bloating things. After I look for them and fix them, I imagine
> that it will be comparable to a native kernel. So, I would look at the size
> of a native kernel, and I think that will in the ballpark of what you can
> expect to see.
Actually, in the context of a simple multimedia plugin that you want to
run sandboxed, you could strip out a lot of the stuff. I can't wait to
try this out. For example the plugin would need filesystem, networking,
IPC, device drivers, in fact it doesn't need much of anything. I wonder
how small I can make it can have it still run.
> I typically run virtual machines configured with 16 meg of "physical" memory,
> and, in that I can fit a decent machine with a lot of the services you'd
> expect on a Linux box, and I do kernel builds and run X (server and clients)
> with no trouble.
I hope it doesn't sound silly to say this but assuming just for a moment
that I could compile this sucker on say, windows (maybe using cygwin32),
and reimplement the part that does system calls in terms of windows system
calls, could this be used to run sandboxed linux (elf) plugins on windows
as well? *That* would be cool.
I guess you would need a way to trap system calls from the windows OS. I
don't know if they provide that facility.
-Jesse
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 15 2000 - 21:00:20 EST