Sawmill's dataspaces and the Hurd's physmem
Neal H. Walfield
neal at walfield.org
Wed Oct 19 11:37:33 CEST 2005
At Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:33:49 +0800,
yuan Darwin-r62832 wrote:
> > Physical memory management needn't be an all or nothing deal. Certainly, an application might wish to completely
> > manage the paging policy and its address space layout, however, I tend to think that this is the exception. And as
> > we will provide a POSIX personality, we need to have some sort of default VM manager.
> About general VM manager, what I really mean is just the "default VM
> manager". However, the question is still there: now that those sort
> of default VM managers provide mmap to those applications who don't
> want to manage their phsical memory, should they trust these VM
As I tried to explain in my last email, there is no default VM
*server*. There is a default VM *library*.
> My conclusion is, if Sawmill's framework has security problem on
> trust model, so has Hurd.
I don't see how this logically follows.
More information about the l4-hackers