🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <893@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au> U3364521@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lou Cavallo) writes:
>G'day,
>In article <20889@grebyn.com>, ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) writes:
>
>CKP> Therefore, the way to get MMU protection for your applications is to
>CKP> abandon application binary compatibility; and if you're going to do
>CKP> this anyway, then why not just use Unix?
>
>In what sense do you mean "binary compatibility" and abondonment of it?

Well, specifically I meant the ability to protect today's program binaries.
I may not have said that well; I surely see an OS which can run both
protected and unprotected (old) binaries.  Of course, you're only really
protected if you only run protected binaries...

>Could the OS set up a way for memory protection that application writers could
>elect to use such that it could be possible to run _only_ memory protective
>programs? {Sorry about the run on sentence}.

I'm sure.  But what this gives is protection for new applications
designed to be protected.  It doesn't give protection to old
applications, and it doesn't protect our new applications from an old
application running concurrently.  Just be aware of that, and there's no
problem.

>Is the OS itself "un-memory protectable"? {Boy I'm having a bad day grammar
>wise. :-)}

Since it is the OS that we must rely upon to enforce protection, then by
definition it must be "trusted" and not "protected".





-- 
First comes the logo: C H E C K P O I N T  T E C H N O L O G I E S      / /  
                                                                    \\ / /    
Then, the disclaimer:  All expressed opinions are, indeed, opinions. \  / o
Now for the witty part:    I'm pink, therefore, I'm spam!             \/