Whether your general assertion was pointless or not, it was false, evidently because you didn't think about which facts about the situation at hand were relevant enough to mention. I'm not convinced that you would have made it to a true statement by doing so, and your efforts in the comments above don't seem to be headed in the direction of a correct thesis, but if you bother to explain what you mean in a coherent way, I'll be happy to engage with that instead.

But I'm not going to try to guess what you wanted to say and then discuss that, because I'll probably guess wrong.

Instead of complaining when people point out that what you said was false, you should thank them for taking the time to correct you and take the opportunity to learn from it. Then, be more careful about what you say next time, so that you say things that are true instead of false.

▲

asdfsa32 a day ago | parent [-]

No, your assertion that you can bolt a userspace kernel on top of an insecure and bloated kernel to make it secure is false. A userspace kernel is just a vm like any other, in fact, a less secure vm at best.

So you should carefully read and consider the conversation before you write, least you come across as arrogant and foolish.

▲

kragen a day ago | parent [-]

I haven't previously made an "assertion that you can bolt a userspace kernel on top of an insecure and bloated kernel to make it secure", but, as it happens, you can; that's how web browsers execute JavaScript, how Cloudflare Workers run Wasm, and how Firecracker runs virtual machines on Linux, for example.

Whether this works or not—or, more defensibly, how great the risk is—depends a great deal on the details.

I'm not really interested in how I appear to you, so I recommend you don't waste your time telling me about it.

▲

asdfsa32 a day ago | parent [-]

But those are not Linux kernels and have very different memory model, hardware access, and so on and so on.

But I don't think this is a technical conversation anymore, you have some other problems to address and it is best you do that.

	▲	kragen 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Actually, Linux kernels are overwhelmingly the most common thing to run in Firecracker VMs, and at any rate that isn't relevant to your assertion that you cannot "bolt a userspace kernel on top of an insecure and bloated kernel to make it secure"; that would still be mistaken even if the userspace kernel did have to have a very different memory model, hardware access, and so on and so on, from the underlying insecure and bloated kernel. As for whether this is a technical conversation or not, I think there's an interesting split: all of my comments in this conversation have been technical, and informative to boot, while the technical content of your comments has been limited to trivial statements that are easily shown to be incorrect. Instead, your last two comments have contained personal attacks, which I have so far refrained from. (You may have noticed in the past that, when you repeatedly launch personal attacks on people, they usually respond by personally attacking you too, but I have not done that.) Your latest comment is over 50% personal attack by byte count. Why is that? Have you considered thinking long enough about one of your comments to post something technically correct, original, or both?