Policy/mechanism separation in Hydra

Levin, Roy; Cohen, Ellis S.; Corwin, William M.; Pollack, Fred J.; Wulf, William A.

doi:10.1145/1067629.806531

Cited by 61 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hydra [6,20,32], Opal [4], and i5/OS R [15] provide memory access control features like the heap protection domain described here. i5/OS is a commercial OS currently in use, and JVMs for i5/OS [16] can easily support heap protection.…”

Section: Operating Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Heap protection for Java virtual machines

Chiba¹

2006

Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Principles and Practice of Programming in Java - PPPJ '06

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Java virtual machine (JVM) crashes are often due to an invalid memory reference to the JVM heap. Before the bug that caused the invalid reference can be fixed, its location must be identified. It can be in either the JVM implementation or the native library written in C language invoked from Java applications. To help system engineers identify the location, we implemented a feature using page protection that prevents threads executing native methods from referring to the JVM heap. This feature protects the JVM heap during native method execution, and when native method execution refers to the JVM heap invalidly, it interrupts the execution by generating a page-fault exception and then reports the location where the page-fault exception was generated. This helps the system engineer to identify the location of the bug in the native library. The runtime overhead for using this feature averaged 4.4% based on an estimation using the SPECjvm98, SPECjbb2000, and JFCMark benchmark suites.

show abstract

Section: Operating Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Heap protection for Java virtual machines

Chiba¹

2006

Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Principles and Practice of Programming in Java - PPPJ '06

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the majority of customisable systems work is in the operating system layer, utilising techniques such as policy and mechanism separation [18,17], parameterised policies [1] and the downloading of application code into the system kernel [7,10]. Instances such as a Web server constructed above an exo-kernel [14] demonstrate the performance advantages that can be obtained.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolving System Services to Meet Application Requirements

Detmold

Falkner

Munro

et al. 2006

Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'06)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An increasingly common server deployment scenario involves dedicated servers supporting single applications. In such cases, system software need not be concerned with fairness between applications, but should instead focus on serving the precise needs of one particular application. To meet this goal, system software must permit applications to express their needs and must evolve to meet those needs.The fixed abstractions in conventional systems software militate against both expression of applications' needs and against restructuring of system components to meet those needs. The compliant systems architecture (CSA) is a novel language-based software architecture that promises to enhance the extent to which system software is compliant to the applications it supports. Using our CSA instantiation, we identify several tactics for evolving system software to enhance compliance. The principal contribution of this paper is practical validation of CSA, via case studies of these tactics, demonstrating improved system services for an application.

show abstract

“…Some changeable aspects of middleware behavior are commonly implemented according to the principle of separation between mechanisms and policies, which was originally articulated by Levin et al [11]. Policies are implemented by the mechanisms, where high-level Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page.…”

Section: Problem Motivation and Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the benefits of decomposing policy engines into components

Beznosov

2004

Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Adaptive and Reflective Middleware -

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order for middleware systems to be adaptive, their properties and services need to support a wide variety of application-specific policies. However, application developers and administrators should not be expected to cope with complex policy languages and evaluation engines or t o develop custom engines from scratch. In this paper, we discuss the benefits of policy engines designed as component frameworks with a mix of parameterized pre-built and custom logic composed to implement complex policies. To provide an example of such a design approach, we present an authorization architecture for ASP.NET Web services that has been implemented in a real-world system.

show abstract

Policy/mechanism separation in Hydra

Cited by 61 publications

References 9 publications

Heap protection for Java virtual machines

Heap protection for Java virtual machines

Evolving System Services to Meet Application Requirements

On the benefits of decomposing policy engines into components

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About