> the Base API can be regarded as a "bottom layer specification" (its
> implementation is typically less than 10KLOC) of the whole system but
> there is no fixed base-internal interface. This gives each platform
> maximum flexibility about how the API is implemented. Given the vast
> differences of the mechanisms used, this flexibility is needed. E.g., by
> comparing the ways processes are created and address spaces are managed
> on Linux and L4, you will see that the respective base code has almost
> nothing in common. On Linux, 'rm_session()->attach()' is implemented
> locally by the calling process using mmap. In contrast, on L4, the same
> API function is an RPC to core, which, in turn, manipulates the address
> space on demand (using L4's map/unmap) when a page fault occurs.
>

Yes, i get the notion, actully at the moment i'm trying to understand base-linux. I must admit the source became much more clear after your explained the actual idea of why 'no solid bottom specification'.  Another fact, i read a lot of code from various projects, genode code the most readable with well structured cpp and build setup.

> topic "Microkernelizing Linux" described on our "Challenges" Wiki page?
>  http://genode.org/community/wiki/Challenges

Yes infact.

> Let me suggest two pointers that we stumbled upon when we brain-stormed
> this idea. First, we were pointed to Linux' "resource containers", which
> promise to allow the assignment of fine-grained resource constraints to
> individual processes. This looks like an interesting mechanism to
> support Genode's resource-trading concept. Secondly, we were made aware
> of the Capsicum project, which brings capability-based security to Linux.
>
>  http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/security/capsicum/
>

Linux containers should be  LXC project from IBM.?