From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <6b0cba33f3836890d7fc25602e1fc0d2@quanstro.net>
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 07:51:40 -0400
To: lucio@proxima.alt.za, 9fans@9fans.net
In-Reply-To: <d7764a554b8d54b5bf8b85783c0c6242@proxima.alt.za>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] security questions
Topicbox-Message-UUID: e0306700-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> The
> virtual memory management is too persuasive to be broken in any
> significant way.

do you mean pervasive?  if you do, i don't buy the argument.
it's easy to get lucky when doing concurrent programming with
locks, as in the plan 9 kernel.  it's easy to get lucky in many cases,
and yet have completely bogus locking.  (as i rediscovered this
morning.)

- erik