Gabriel Paubert writes: > I agree, but I don't know why you believe it would cause > a machine check (0x200): from my docs, it is an ISI (0x400).
I don't believe it would cause a machine check either, but that is what Matt Sealey was saying. I don't know where he got that idea. > BTW, there is one way to make pages non executable: mark > them as guarded, but it will have a significant cost in > terms of performance. Indeed. I guess we could do that as a config option for machines that really want maximum security at the expense of performance, but I don't think all users would want that. Paul. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
