Re: GEM and memory protection

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

On Mon, 25 May 1998, Martin-Eric Racine wrote:

>  >BTW; it would also be a good idea when -- on a protection violation -
>  >the kernel would also display the process name of the owner of the
>  >memory block that the process whas trying to access (if available).
> 
> Iv've always felt AV servers should be rewritten to make use of /pipe
> or /shm so that data can be passed without violating protection. This
> would not change the protocol itself, only how the server handles it.

It's not a problem to implement a MP-friendly AV-protocol - just
allocate a buffer in global memory. The problem is that a lot of
programmers ignore this incredible simple (and documented/suggested)
rule just because their OS (MagiC) doesn't have MP...

If MiNT could list the owner of the "offended" memory-block as well as
the violator, then things would be a lot simpler.


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