06:26 <ehirdoy1> apache2: Can bps and sector_size take 512-4096? and we don't know which is bigger? For example (bps, sector_size) = (512,4096) or (4096,512) or any restrictions here?

06:43 <ehirdoy1> hm...the restriction is `bps >= sector_size`

07:13 <ehirdoy1> https://github.com/ehirdoy/ocaml-fat/commit/32894feed7c9248ae50d332e4fabdeee22f0df8a

11:16 <pie__> you guys seen this yet? https://www.nccgroup.trust/globalassets/our-research/us/whitepapers/2019/ncc_group-assessing_unikernel_security.pdf i havent read it yet

11:17 <pie__> doesnt look as broad as the title suggests

11:17 <pie__> abstract says they looked at rumprun and includeos

11:37 <hannes> pie__: there's as well a recorded toorcon talk from them, who elaborate slightly on MirageOS at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b68VFuB_y5M

11:39 <pie__> thanks

11:39 <hannes> for mirage-xen, there's ongoing effort to rebase onto unikraft ++ hvt; for mirage-solo5 there's https://github.com/Solo5/solo5/issues/293 https://github.com/Solo5/solo5/issues/303 https://github.com/Solo5/solo5/issues/304

11:39 <pie__> hope i wont foret to get back to this '-_-

11:40 <hannes> oh this one as well https://github.com/Solo5/solo5/issues/292 (+adam steens recent reports on mirageos-devel on how to enable retpoline)

12:27 <apache2> ehirdoy1: bps is an "application thing" (related to FAT, might be different if it was NTFS or EXT4 or whatever); 4096 is some arbitrary number hardcoded by the programmer instead of detecting the block device sector_size

12:27 <apache2> ehirdoy1: but if you have a patch that seems to work, please submit that -- that's definitely better than something that decidedly doesn't work.