In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 01/27/2006
at 11:18 AM, Binyamin Dissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>I see integrity as preventing a problem state routine from doing
>something malicious or outside it's box, and preventing a supervisor
>state routine from accidentally doing something unexpected.
Indeed, and what you propose will almost certainly lead to doing
something unexpected. But it's not my dog.
>I tend to write supervisor state code carefully. It would take real
>bad planning to end up with "a supervisor state PSW pointing to the
>ozone".
E.g., changing CR4.
Why not carefully formulate what your real[1] requirement is and
submit that to IBM.
[1] Changing the AX is not your requirement, it's how you assume you
can satisfy your requirement.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
