<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Dynamic Process Isolation · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2110.04751/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2110.04751/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Dynamic Process Isolation — mentioned by tbrockman</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49924952</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2110.04751:49924952</guid><pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2026 17:59:40 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;But those same things (and more), in the majority case of completely benign workloads, are significantly better for resource utilization and performance. I don&amp;#x27;t think their model is &amp;quot;run everything in V8 isolates as the only isolation primitive&amp;quot;, I believe it&amp;#x27;s closer to &amp;quot;run things with V8 isolates as the floor, dynamically trading efficiency for security in response to runtime (and I&amp;#x27;d also assume static) analysis&amp;quot;. They also add restrictions to make it more difficult/expensive for code to exploit side-channels (ex. changing the resolution and behavior of `performance.now ` and `Date.now`…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2110.04751/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CR</category></item></channel></rss>
