Re: Cookie jar patch for Supexec/Super patch?

[Petr Stehlik <stehlik@cas3.zlin.vutbr.cz>]

On Fri, 5 Sep 1997, Konrad M.Kokoszkiewicz wrote:

> > I originally proposed a system call that would read a cookie, set a cookie,
> > destroy a cookie, and get a list of cookies - this call would also read the
> > hz_200 variable, and a few others as if they were cookies.  The cookies were
> 
> That's good idea. :) Of course, we can add TWO calls, one for reading 
> GEMDOS variables (various ones) and one for Cookie Jar management...

I still can't see the reason for this changes: MiNT is NOW TOS, and so 
can't be made more secure than TOS. There are thousands of programs which 
access the supervisor areas (Cookie, variables) and you can't hope they 
will ever be recompiled with new MiNTlibs. If you make the changes the 
programs won't run under new MiNT anymore? If yes, the new MiNT will be 
useless.

For real Unix like kernel please use Linux, it works very well and has 
all protection features already implemented. As for current MiNT, I would 
be happy to get memory protection working under 68040 and 68060. For 
standard 68030 a working virtual memory would be the best possible thing 
to add/change.

Petr
--
    WWW: http://ft3.zlin.vutbr.cz/stehlik/home.htm
 e-mail: stehlik@cas3.zlin.vutbr.cz
netmail: 2:421/36@fidonet.org, 90:1200/2@nest.ftn