Memory Protection (Attributes)
chrisj at rtems.org
Tue Dec 6 00:28:24 UTC 2011
On 6/12/11 9:44 AM, Peter Dufault wrote:
> On Dec 5, 2011, at 4:58 , Gedare Bloom wrote:
>> My suspicion is that most users would not need memory protection, but
>> there are definitely users who are interested in it (I know at least 2
>> developers are rolling their own already, not including me), so I felt
>> this is a good time to explore a general API for it.
> I disagree - I think most users need memory protection but don't know it (map most code read-only, map certain task regions read-only except when the task is active, etc) and once it's easily available and the hardware supports it they will use it.
I see both use cases. If we can offer protection for those who need it
and not for those who do not so we cover both cases.
We are after a carefully designed solution that gives the user control
rather than a model that force use into a specific processing model or
One thing Gedare and I have discussed when we meet earlier this year is
a process type solution is not what we see as a suitable model. We see
issues in offering that type of solution.
More information about the devel