On Thursday 02 December 2004 17:26, Ron Johnson wrote: > I'm pretty sure that they are distinct features, i.e., it's possible > to do mem prot w/o VM , and vice versa. I should've said "virtual memory as implemented by modern Unix systems". Sam, to clarify: since the VM abstracts physical addresses away from programs anyway, memory protection is largely a result of the fact that programs simply cannot address memory outside of their abstraction. You can't write to another program's memory if you think that the whole address range belongs to you in the first place. In effect, each program thinks that it owns the entire machine. > You think this guy is a CompSci student with just enough knowledge > to be dangerous? I kind of got that idea. :) -- Kirk Strauser
Attachment:
pgpXVg9vPqIeX.pgp
Description: PGP signature