From:	ao950 AT FreeNet DOT Carleton DOT CA (Paul Derbyshire)
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: Ring 0?
Date:	9 Mar 1997 04:25:24 GMT
Organization:	The National Capital FreeNet
Lines:	19
Message-ID:	<5fte3k$h5h@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
References:	<5fivnk$cfc AT freenet-news DOT carleton DOT ca>
Reply-To:	ao950 AT FreeNet DOT Carleton DOT CA (Paul Derbyshire)
NNTP-Posting-Host:	freenet3.carleton.ca
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

OK...why do they call it "ring" then? Does it refer to a ring like
circular data structure or something else?

Also, do ring 0 programs run faster? I guess because the CPU isn't always
second-guessing memory accesses to see if they violate segment bounds the
software has been assigned?

As for a ring 3 program being unable to currupt the kernel, I'm not sure
this is entirely correct. I discovered that a DOS program running in a DOS
box under Win 95 (and DOS boxes presumably run in ring 3) can crash the
machine with a bad memory write.

--
    .*.  Where feelings are concerned, answers are rarely simple [GeneDeWeese]
 -()  <  When I go to the theater, I always go straight to the "bag and mix"
    `*'  bulk candy section...because variety is the spice of life... [me]
Paul Derbyshire ao950 AT freenet DOT carleton DOT ca, http://chat.carleton.ca/~pderbysh

- Raw text -