Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 21 Mar 1997 16:05:52 -0500 (EST)
From:      Peter Dufault <dufault@hda.com>
To:        smp@csn.net (Steve Passe)
Cc:        hasty@rah.star-gate.com, louie@TransSys.COM, petry@netwolf.NetMasters.com, multimedia@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Continquous Memory vs Virtual Memory
Message-ID:  <199703212105.QAA29475@hda.hda.com>
In-Reply-To: <199703212214.PAA25609@Ilsa.StevesCafe.com> from Steve Passe at "Mar 21, 97 03:14:06 pm"

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> this is the possibility that I was refering to...

I think that group protection to the device is adequate.  There
are few enough "customers" with the device that complex exploits
aren't worth it and you can control who has access to the device.

-- 
Peter Dufault (dufault@hda.com)   Realtime Machine Control and Simulation
HD Associates, Inc.               Voice: 508 433 6936



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199703212105.QAA29475>