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 > managers?
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. Thanks, Neal _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
