From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Derek Fawcus <dfawcus@cisco.com>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] pathetic
Message-ID: <20040226153735.A20891@edinburgh.cisco.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0402250822260.9147-100000@maxroach.lanl.gov>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0402250822260.9147-100000@maxroach.lanl.gov>; from rminnich@lanl.gov on Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 08:26:01AM -0700
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 15:37:36 +0000
Topicbox-Message-UUID: fb2376fe-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 08:26:01AM -0700, ron minnich wrote:
>
> golly. seperate I&D space. Which is an idea that is only about 40 or so
> years old (Burroughs 5500 ... or am I late even with that).

Back to the point...  It would be possible to implement seperate I&D on
existing x86,  but only for a limited set of programs: those without
(certain types of) shared libraries.

Set a code segment to have the required length,  base 0.
Set a decending data segment to the required length,  top ffffffff

Mind one then has to fiddle with segment descriptors,  which may mean
LDTs or  'interesting' set's entries in the GDT.

DF