Talk:Capability-based addressing

The iAPX 432

Intel used also used capability-based addressing in the iAPX 432. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.20.170.4 (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Quite right. The article now mentions the 432. CWC 10:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

How does capability-based addressing differ from Intel x86-supported segments in protected mode? I think this needs to be explained in the article, for as I interpret what's written, x86 CPUs also support capability-based addressing. -- 2601:9:2380:AE00:62A4:4CFF:FEAF:5483 (talk) 06:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

X86 segment registers were (IIUC) inspired by the iAPX 432, but the X86 does not allow code to manipulate capabilities the way a true capability architecture does (eg., create a capability covering only one element of an array for passing to an untrusted function). CWC 10:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Kernel control of memory accessibility permitted of a process

Kindly forgive the quite probably ignorant intrusion of one who may only imagine an ambiguity in the third sentence in the article.

Does that statement intend to say either of these two? I cannot quite grasp the proper meaning intended:

This effectively allows the kernel to control which processes may access which objects in memory — without the need to use separate address spaces that would require a context switch when an access occurs.

or

This effectively allows the kernel to control which processes may access which objects in memory without the need to use separate address spaces, by requiring a context switch when an access occurs.

Kindly help me out, here.

~~ Wordsmith (talk)

Good point. I've rewritten that sentence (only 7½ years later ...). Further rewrites welcome. CWC 10:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Capability-based addressing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130414173515/http://www.eros-os.org/pipermail/cap-talk/2006-August/005543.html to http://www.eros-os.org/pipermail/cap-talk/2006-August/005543.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)