Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 5 Mar 1999 07:20:13 +1100 (EST) | From | Nathan Hand <> | Subject | Re: Linux Buffer Overflow Security Exploits |
| |
On Thu, 4 Mar 1999, Tuomas Heino wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Mar 1999, Martin Mares wrote: > > > > And how do you use more than 4 gigabytes of RAM on these boring Intel > > > boxes _without_ segmentation? ;) > > > [... and don't say "ram drives" - unless you have a new meaning for that ;)] > > > > The answer is "You don't want to do this". Using >4G of RAM on a 32-bit > > CPU is brain-damaged. > > Still I think this brain-damage has already been implemented somewhere... > maybe even at the brain-damage center at redmond ;) > ... and it definitely was implemented for 32-bit memory addressing on > 16-bit cpus ;)
Sure, and everyone thought that was brain damaged too. It made for some very complicated user space code, and I dread to think how complex many 286 UNIX variants became. Moving to a flat address space was the "thing to do" when writing 386 DOS applications.
Just for contrast, it is possible to get a 1Mb ram pack for the C64, an 8-bit machine with technically only 64kb address space. It was achieved using bank switching, and it was a stupid idea then too. It was simpler to just get a 16-bit machine, and often faster/cheaper as well.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |