MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2593225823 · doi:10.1109/ic2e.2017.16

Dark Shadows: User-Level Guest/Host Linux Process Shadowing

2017· article· en· W2593225823 on OpenAlex
Peter A. Dinda, Akhil Guliani

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSecurity and Verification in Computing
Canadian institutionsScience North
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVirtualizationHost (biology)Computer scienceShadow (psychology)Process (computing)Operating systemVirtual machineCloud computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concept of a shadow process simplifies the design and implementation of virtualization services such as system call forwarding and device file-level device virtualization. A shadow process on the host mirrors a process in the guest at the level of the virtual and physical address space, terminating in the host physical addresses. Previous shadow process mechanisms have required changes to the guest and host kernels. We describe a shadow process technique that is implemented at user-level in both the guest and the host. In our technique, we refer to the host shadow process as a dark shadow as it arranges its own elements to avoid conflicting with the guest process's elements. We demonstrate the utility of dark shadows by using our implementation to create system call forwarding and device file-level device virtualization prototypes that are compact and simple.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSecurity and Verification in ComputingFrench-language works237,207