Subject: re: Non executable mappings and compatibility options bugs
To: matthew green <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Curt Sampson <email@example.com>
Date: 06/22/2004 19:23:34
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, matthew green wrote:
> i'm all for security features, but they can't break other things in
> the process. why is it a regression to not enable a security feature
> for an emulation until it's verified _not to break it_?
Some people might prefer to have the emulation break, rather than the
security break. I would generally prefer that, since it's obvious
breakage, rather than subtle breakage.
Curt Sampson <firstname.lastname@example.org> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.NetBSD.org
Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light. --XTC