Re: Virtual Virtualizers
- From: glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 19:48:01 -0700
Jesus Cea wrote:
(snip)
That was true in the original 68000. In 68010 and up, Motorola solved
the issue making the supervisor bit access "protected". So, a code
trying to determine if it was "supervisor" could trap and its VM parent
could provide it "false" information, fooling it to think it was on control.
I am pretty sure I read about a leak on the 68020. I think there are some flags that can be read after they are stored on the stack. I don't
have any 68020 books to check, though.
-- glen
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Virtual Virtualizers
- From: windenntw@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: Virtual Virtualizers
- References:
- Re: Virtual Virtualizers
- From: Jesus Cea
- Re: Virtual Virtualizers
- Prev by Date: Re: Why Did No Core Machines Have Cache ???
- Next by Date: Re: New record for spec fp peak on x86
- Previous by thread: Re: Virtual Virtualizers
- Next by thread: Re: Virtual Virtualizers
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|