Sender:	vheyndri AT rug DOT ac DOT be
Message-Id:	<3506610C.6A0C@rug.ac.be>
Date:	Wed, 11 Mar 1998 11:01:48 +0100
From:	Vik Heyndrickx <Vik DOT Heyndrickx AT rug DOT ac DOT be>
Mime-Version:	1.0
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Cc:	Bill Currie <bill AT taniwha DOT tssc DOT co DOT nz>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Temporary files considered unsafe
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 980311114522 DOT 7344Y-100000 AT is>

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Bill Currie wrote:
> 
> > Store Task Register.  However, I'm not certain windows uses task
> > segments. AFAICT from the Win3.0 VxD docs, the VMM (the real OS behind
> > windows, also the DPMI provider) uses the ring 0 stack to hold task
> > info, though I could easily be wrong.
> 
> I'm really vague on these issues, but doesn't protected mode require a
> TSS?

Sure! But, I think what Bill means to say that Windows does the
multitasking itself without using the processor's multitasking features
(at least not the task switching mechanism). Therefore all DOS tasks
would be executed in the same processor task, and yield therefore the
same TSS-selector (if you can get at it).

> If we can easily get the VM id number and if that number is unique (i.e.
> not reused if I e.g. close a DOS box and open it again), then the VM id
> and the PSP should be enough; we don't need the time part at all.

Reusage of an ID is not what I see defined under 'unique'. The only
thing that is required is that two running processes don't have the same
ID. When a process was terminated and restarted again, it can perfectly
get the same ID. In 'nix this is AFAIK not different.

-- 
 \ Vik /-_-_-_-_-_-_/   
  \___/ Heyndrickx /          
   \ /-_-_-_-_-_-_/

- Raw text -