Re: GEM and memory protection

[Andreas Schwab <schwab@issan.informatik.uni-dortmund.de>]

Konrad Kokoszkiewicz <draco@mi.com.pl> writes:

|> 
|> > > That would be a reasonable compromise (IMHO) between an unreal dream (full
|> > > protection) and hard reality (no protection).
|> > 
|> > I really have a problem here: it means that correctly written programs
|> > are
|> > punished (real MP is taking away), just because some other programmers
|> > don't code properly.
|> > 
|> > If you really think that this needs to be done, PLEASE make it
|> > configurable.
|> 
|> The better solution would be to protect the shell against being killed 
|> because of a faulty AV-client.

Accessing it in supervisor mode should do it.  In supervisor mode you can
access all memory attached to any process.

-- 
Andreas Schwab                                      "And now for something
schwab@issan.informatik.uni-dortmund.de              completely different"
schwab@gnu.org