Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!helios!tecmtyvm!pl430331 From: PL430331@tecmtyvm.mty.itesm.mx Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system Subject: Re: Protected-mode snake oil Message-ID: <90226.124403PL430331@tecmtyvm.mty.itesm.mx> Date: 14 Aug 90 18:44:03 GMT References: <1204.26c2fb48@waikato.ac.nz> <1210.26c694ed@waikato.ac.nz> <8099@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> Organization: Instituto Tecnologico y de Est. Sup. de Monterrey - Campus Mty. Lines: 23 I think that this problem should be solved in the same way that Apple solved the problem of assigning system heap memory to the INITs: by setting a flag within a resource (say, 'prot'). This way, a Init like AfterDark could run under user mode, and another like Adobe Type Manager could patch the OS in protected mode. Perhaps the main danger of assigning INIT the permission to run privileged instructions is: How can I be sure it is NOT a virus? (Just think about it!) I thought the answer was: Run all Inits under user mode, and if they patch system routines, let them have a way to tell the OS they're going to make a correction, and, when the system call is made, the OS gives them control to the patch routine, then back to protected mode. Now the problem is: How can we accomplish this? It would be safer to use levels of privilege, like in the Intel 386 (UGH! ARG!!). And I think this discussion would be useless if the posibility of using protected mode in the Mac wouldn't be real. When will Apple dare to make this move? Greeting from ITESM, Monterrey, Mexico, your friends, Gabriel & Rael.