From fc6343b65c79b287ba1884514698e59f87a3d47d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: perlindgren Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2023 22:37:42 +0100 Subject: Apply suggestions from code review MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Thanks for all suggestions, awesome! Co-authored-by: Henrik Tjäder --- book/en/src/rtic_vs.md | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) (limited to 'book/en/src/rtic_vs.md') diff --git a/book/en/src/rtic_vs.md b/book/en/src/rtic_vs.md index 2f8c8d5..454b239 100644 --- a/book/en/src/rtic_vs.md +++ b/book/en/src/rtic_vs.md @@ -10,7 +10,9 @@ It provides a minimal set of required mechanisms for safe sharing of mutable res Comparing RTIC to traditional a Real-Time Operating System (RTOS) is hard. Firstly, a traditional RTOS typically comes with no guarantees regarding system safety, even the most hardened kernels like the formally verified [seL4] kernel. Their claims to integrity, confidentiality, and availability regards only the kernel itself (under additional assumptions its configuration and environment). They even state: -"An OS kernel, verified or not, does not automatically make a system secure. In fact, any system, no matter how secure, can be used in insecure ways." +"An OS kernel, verified or not, does not automatically make a system secure. In fact, any system, no matter how secure, can be used in insecure ways." - [seL4 FAQ][sel4faq] + +[sel4faq]: https://docs.sel4.systems/projects/sel4/frequently-asked-questions.html [seL4]: https://sel4.systems/ -- cgit v1.2.3