Re: memory protection

[Jo Even Skarstein <joska@nuts.edu>]

On Wed, 19 Nov 1997, Martin-Eric Racine wrote:

>  >Then why does it access memory it doesn't own?  That's still a bug.  If
>  >it's not bug-free (which will of course never happen for any non-trivial
>  >program) it should catch SIGSEGV and properly clean up in the handler.
> 
> Andreas, 
> 
> read again: "supposed to be MiNT friendly".
> It means Thing is NOT behaving nice, even though it's supposed to.
> This DOES imply it IS buggy.

Even if it *does* access memory it doesn't own, it doesn't have to be
Thing's fault. Remember, Thing is a AV-server, and AV-servers *must*
access other processes' memory.

It the AV-client puts its commandline in private memory (unfortunelately
many do) instead of global memory, Thing will get the blame and MiNT will
kill it although it's entirely the client's fault.


/*
** Jo Even Skarstein   http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~josk/
**
**   beer - maria mckee - atari falcon - babylon 5
*/