Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 20:37:24 -0800 From: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Commerical applications (was: Development and validation Message-ID: <199701220437.UAA28141@austin.polstra.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 22 Jan 1997 15:29:20 %2B1100." <199701220429.PAA01813@godzilla.zeta.org.au> References: <199701220429.PAA01813@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[double mapping the boundary page] > Isn't this just wasteful on (flat model) i386's? It provides no > protection against writing the text in the boundary page via the > data mapping, and isn't necessary for execution because the i386 > doesn't have an execution bit in its page tables. Yes, I think you're right. The double mapping has to take place, though, because the linker has relocated addresses based on the assumption that it will take place. The linker could be changed not to do that, but then it wouldn't be ELF any more. John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199701220437.UAA28141>