3 ms·
As an example, it is probably not difficult to create a new x86 version that is user mode compatible with most modern programs but lacks things like segmentatio
by yuhong 10y ago
As an example, it is probably not difficult to create a new x86 version that is user mode compatible with most modern programs but lacks things like segmentation and real mode. New OS versions would be required, but most modern user mode programs would work with few if any modifications.
- nickpsecurity 10y agoThey're already sort of doing that on x86-64 but keeping it in there if you need it. I'm particularly going to miss segmentation as it's phased out as it was used in prior, high-security work plus some current work. Example below: http://dslab.epfl.ch/proj/cpi/ http://dslab.epfl.ch/proj/cpi/ In prior comment, I illustrate with Hardbound they can do a lot more than this. It remains compatible at source-level with x86 apps with good performance while enforcing spatial safety. I could imagine a split version where certain components, esp binaries, run totally unsafe just for compatibility while it enforces safety on whatever you can compile. Alternatively, people wanting backward compatibility with no source could run with safety off whereas anyone (or vendor) with source could compile a version that works. Even the binary stuff might be isolated a bit with techniques that decompile, instrument, and recompile the binaries. Or separate, assembly-level methods. So, Intel could do a lot more than it's doing without totally scrapping backward compatibility or performance. They just... don't. I think they're afraid of loosing billions again or just don't know about the stuff I'm mentioning. Or both. (shrugs) Love to talk to them about it sometime.