Re: comments on PMP enhancements
Since it looks like you're responding to me, I'll try to answer.
Two quick comments:There are now three proposals that I know of. The original and most
visible is the task group's working proposal, which you already know.
The only version I've seen is here:
As part of my feedback, I suggested a modified proposal with four
"security levels". To make this more accessible, I've now created a
simple PDF document, which can be found here:
As the document explains, my top-most security level (what I'm now
calling "full security") is for all practical purposes the same as the
task group's proposal when MML = 1. The important difference is that
I offer two "proto-security" levels that provide better protection than
you get with MML = 0, which is the only alternative to "full security"
under the task group's working proposal. I would be pleased if you
could give my proposal a look and give me your thoughts.
Tariq Kurd has been developing a different modified proposal. I need
to review his latest version, but when I last looked, it appeared to me
to satisify the needs of his system in a slightly more complex way than
my proposal, without any advantage. Hence, I confess I haven't yet
seen the appeal. I'll try again.
- do we ever need to allow Write_Only and Write&Execute regions? OR can weThough I neglected to say so in my document, I meant for these
combinations to continue to be reserved encodings. If anyone is
proposing write-only or write/execute permissions, I'm not yet aware of
except for the specific shared RW/RO regionsThis sounds like Mr, Kurd's proposal, not mine.
Separately, there is a proposal to have an S-PMP, which further filtersI totally agree. Haven't looked at it yet, though.
- John Hauser