Re: JIT emulator needs

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

Albert Cahalan wrote:
>>
>> That's fine.  That's a policy decision.  That's what a security policy
>> *is*.  The owner of the system has decided, by security policy, that
>> that is not allowed.  Bypassing that is not acceptable.
> 
> Fixing a bug should be acceptable.
> 

That's not what you're trying to do, though.  You're trying to change
the behaviour underneath the security policy.  If there is a bug, it's
in the security policy and that's where it needs to be changed.

> Look, let's back up a bit here. At a high level, what exactly do
> you imagine that this behavior was intended for? I suggest you
> list some examples of the attacks that are blocked.
> 
> Can you come up with a reasonable argument that the current behavior
> is the least painful restriction required to block those attacks?
> Does the current behavior block any attack that the proposed behavior
> would not? (list the attacks please)

See above.

	-hpa