At 04:29 AM 4/19/2006 +0000, jayasooriah wrote: >--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, Robert Adsett <subscriptions@...> > >Nonsense. If the user application hangs up the fact that the user >code is > > in user mode but the kernal in system mode won't make recovery >easier or > > harder. > >[example deleted] > >If this were true, the notion of privilege or levels of privilage in >operating systems would meaningless. In those systems the privilege levels are supported by HW which restricts access. Sometimes as 'simple' as a MMU but often with restrictions on I/O access as well. Sometimes with restrictions on the way pointers to memory can be passed between privilege levels. W/O this hardware support, which is not present on the ARM microcontrollers we are talking about, there is indeed no protection offered. Indeed there were Unix variants for the PC before the protection features of the '286 and they did suffer from this flaw. User programs could bring the system down so that a hard reset was required (system programs sometimes caused similar problems but since most of them had been tested on systems with MMU that would core dump in such an event most such bugs had been stamped out) uCLinux will have the same issue. That doesn't mean that in an environment with multiple applications on the same processor there isn't any benefit in having a common 'shared' library or kernal. That just isn't the case we've been talking about, at least I haven't, but rather the more typical microcontroller case of a single application on a microprocessor. >[I tend to work towards clients requirements and not redefine them. >When they say they want to do this, I just show them how to.] I work towards customer requirements as well but I do warn them when they suggest something that's physically impossible. And without hardware support you cannot prevent an application bug from bringing down a microcontroller. There is one exception to this HW requirement and that is when all of the programs access and I/O is mediated by SW by running in an interpreter. Essentially in that case the necessary HW is simulated. With good design, appropriate tools and reviews you can avoid getting the bug there in the first place but user/system mode on a LPC2000 isn't going to get you any closer than a well designed library. Robert " 'Freedom' has no meaning of itself. There are always restrictions, be they legal, genetic, or physical. If you don't believe me, try to chew a radio signal. " -- Kelvin Throop, III http://www.aeolusdevelopment.com/
Message
Re: [lpc2000] Re: system and user modes
2006-04-19 by Robert Adsett
Attachments
- No local attachments were found for this message.