🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <18191@cornell.UUCP>, blandy@marduk.cs.cornell.edu (Jim Blandy)
writes:
>In article <611@myrias.UUCP> cg@suncg.UUCP (Chris Gray) writes:
>>And now the blue sky: I've heard a weak rumor that 1.4 will be able to use the
>>68851 MMU to provide protected address spaces. Any form of this, even if it's
>>not the default, would be great.     [ stuff ]

>Do we REALLY want protected address spaces?

>It seems to me that a lot of the most interesting ideas out here
>(ARexx, something about Message Brokers, etc) involve fiddling with
>other people's address space.  It's one thing to insist that messages
>and message ports be public; that's easy.  But everything a message
>refers to needs to be public as well, so the receiver can access it.
>And gee, libraries need to be public, and if a program patches itself
>into library vectors then it would need to be public (assuming we
>don't add lots of deprotection baggage to library calls), and...

>Or is there a neat way to get around these problems (wouldn't that be
>superb) that I'm missing?

Instead of making the address space of processes completely hidden
from each other, would it be possible to mark them as read-only to
other processes?  I don't really care if a program is peeking around
at messages that I'm passing (or even looking at my text or data or
whatever);  I just don't want to be scribbled on without my permission.

>Jim Blandy - blandy@crnlcs.bitnet

					Ross Cunniff
					Hewlett-Packard HP-UX DCE lab
					...{ucbvax,hplabs}!hpda!cunniff
					cunniff%hpda@hplabs.ARPA