[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Sawmill's dataspaces and the Hurd's physmem
From: |
Neal H. Walfield |
Subject: |
Re: Sawmill's dataspaces and the Hurd's physmem |
Date: |
Wed, 19 Oct 2005 10:37:33 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.6 (Marutamachi) APEL/10.6 Emacs/21.4 (i386-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI) |
At Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:33:49 +0800,
yuan Darwin-r62832 wrote:
> > Physical memory management needn't be an all or nothing deal. Certainly, an
> > application might wish to completely
> > manage the paging policy and its address space layout, however, I tend to
> > think that this is the exception. And as
> > we will provide a POSIX personality, we need to have some sort of default
> > VM manager.
>
> About general VM manager, what I really mean is just the "default VM
> manager". However, the question is still there: now that those sort
> of default VM managers provide mmap to those applications who don't
> want to manage their phsical memory, should they trust these VM
> managers?
As I tried to explain in my last email, there is no default VM
*server*. There is a default VM *library*.
> My conclusion is, if Sawmill's framework has security problem on
> trust model, so has Hurd.
I don't see how this logically follows.
Thanks,
Neal