Re: [MiNT] Security again

[Johan Klockars <rand@cd.chalmers.se>]

> JK>If instead there was a centralized 'dispatcher' (such as TraPatch) all
> JK>this could be avoided. Sure, in some cases there could still be
> JK>collisions over a specific call, but it would be much less common.
> Don't forget that the chain will be reduced to the TraPatch dispatcher for
> most calls

I thought that was what I said.

> JK>Also, something patched in via TraPatch wouldn't need XBRA, so there
> JK>would be no such links for anyone else to need access to.
> TraPatch currently relies on XBRA. Changing that would mean a complete
> redesign

Which is something I don't have any problem with.
It's the idea itself I'm promoting.

I'd prefer a scheme where the kernel/TraPatch is completely responsible
for whatever chaining is still needed and all called routines return
with a normal RTS.

-- 
  Chalmers University   | Why are these |  e-mail:   rand@cd.chalmers.se
     of Technology      |  .signatures  |            johan@rand.thn.htu.se
                        | so hard to do |  WWW/ftp:  rand.thn.htu.se
   Gothenburg, Sweden   |     well?     |            (MGIFv5, QLem, BAD MOOD)