Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 17:08:59 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: Charles Sandmann <sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
cc: dj AT delorie DOT com, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: _dos_ds
In-Reply-To: <9612171707.AA17455@clio.rice.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.961218170324.23536B-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


On Tue, 17 Dec 1996, Charles Sandmann wrote:

> A semi-broken one in this case - no memory outside the 1Mb address space
> will be properly mapped without additional calls - in which case the
> DPMI provider may put the Weitek or SVGA address someplace completely
> different than you expect.

If so, this feature should be removed, IMHO.  It doesn't make sense to 
allow access to the entire address space if whoever indeed needs it must 
make additional DPMI calls anyway.  What we get is security hole without 
any real gain for the good guys.

> But I'll say the same thing about nearptrs, too, which I wrote.

Near pointers are *advertised* to be a dangerous thing, and users are 
advised to stay away of them unless they really need the speed.  Now it 
turns out that the slower but safer way is just slower, period.  The 
effect of this is that if you want to be really on the safe side, you 
must set up your own selector.  In other words, the good guys are 
punished while the bad guys laugh.  Too bad.