[lkml]   [1996]   [Jun]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Network performance
      Date: 	Sat, 29 Jun 1996 16:18:02 -0600 (CST)
    From: Aaron Ucko <>

    >Domain/OS used shared global libraries to provide the user visible
    >functionality that was not part of the kernel itself. All the normal file
    >operations went through the global library, which either directed them
    >through the inherited default I/O Switch operations or to operations
    >provided in an installed type manager library. was this made secure? The OS must have implemented shared
    libs in such a way that library code was privileged but user code wasn't...
    I don't even want to THINK about statically linked binaries! :-) Reminds
    me of Hurd, though.

    Why does the library code need to be privileged? Read and write can be built
    out of memory mapping primitives without security problems so long as the
    kernel implements the proper access rights on the underlying mapped object.
    Naturally, installing a new type manager required the appropriate access rights
    itself. As for static linking, the global libraries were *never* statically
    linked into anything. It just wasn't possible or necessary.


     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:37    [W:0.021 / U:2.544 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site