[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [MiNT] Security again

To: <mint@fishpool.com>
Subject: RE: [MiNT] Security again
From: "Julian Reschke" <reschke@muenster.de>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 14:13:24 +0100
Importance: Normal
In-reply-to: <Pine.MNT.4.10.9912021403370.120-100000@milan>
Reply-to: <reschke@muenster.de>
Sender: owner-mint@fishpool.com

> From: owner-mint@fishpool.com [mailto:owner-mint@fishpool.com]On Behalf
> Of Frank Naumann
> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 1999 2:09 PM
> To: mint@fishpool.com
> Subject: Re: [MiNT] Security again
> ...
>
> The idea of TraPatch and the idea of a stable kernel are concurrent. So
> you must decide between Trapatch and stability. That's a fact, about
> application code you never have any control.

I can't follow... Right now processes can hook into traps if they can go
into supervisor mode, so introducint a TraPatch like concept wouldn't make
things worse, right?

References:
- Re: [MiNT] Security again
  - From: Frank Naumann <fnaumann@csmd2.cs.uni-magdeburg.de>

Prev by Date: Re: [MiNT] Security again
Next by Date: Re: [MiNT] Security again
Previous by thread: Re: [MiNT] Security again
Next by thread: Re: [MiNT] Security again
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread