Bohuslav Rychlik <br...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:Nope, and here's the simple reason why: currently, an application
>So who here is convinced that adding memory protection to the OS now
>(without using the afore-mentioned method) would break
>backwards-compatibility to 2.04 programs? I don't know; it just still
>seems to me that it ought to be possible.
communicates with the system via the use of system calls and the Exec
Message interface. An Exec Message consists of a header, and a data
section (simplified explanation, here). That data section can be
anything the application (or the system library) desires. In fact,
many of the current Messages pass pointers to memory as part of the
expected data section - and those pointers can point to memory the
*calling* task owns, and which the system can subsequently modify.
Or, for that matter, any other task - and *that's* the problem.
There has been no commonly-accepted way of specifying that a given
Not only that, but with the current design, it's entirely possible
"Remember that good diction reflects so well on you, so practice all
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.