Self-referencing Page Tables for the x86-Architecture
1–10 of 12 posts
Re: Self-referencing Page Tables for the x86-Architecture
#2I'm confused, is this meant to be presented as new work? Windows has done this for a very long time.
Re: Self-referencing Page Tables for the x86-Architecture
#3I'm confused, is this meant to be presented as new work? Windows has done this for a very long time.
It’s a bachelor’s thesis.
Re: Self-referencing Page Tables for the x86-Architecture
#4[dead]
Re: Self-referencing Page Tables for the x86-Architecture
#5I'm confused, is this meant to be presented as new work? Windows has done this for a very long time.
"There is only a single reference5 dated to 2010 indicating that Microsoft might use a similar approach for its NT kernel."
Re: Self-referencing Page Tables for the x86-Architecture
#6If I'm not mistaken, this is just fractal mapping, which is very common. See https://wiki.osdev.org/Fractal_Page_Mapping
Re: Self-referencing Page Tables for the x86-Architecture
#7I'm confused, is this meant to be presented as new work? Windows has done this for a very long time.
I found it very opaquely worded the whole way through. I think the work being presented is simply an implementation of the technique in eduos, but short of going and reading the paper I don’t know.
Re: Self-referencing Page Tables for the x86-Architecture
#8Isn't this just fractal page mappings? Am I missing something?
Re: Self-referencing Page Tables for the x86-Architecture
#9I'm currently using recursive page tables for the OS I'm working on, but I'm probably going to change that. There are lots of different address spaces for different processes and (with IOMMU) devices, and it's nicer to be able to modify any of them rather than only the current one. I am leaning toward just assigning 2 MiB of memory to page tables at a time and keeping a mapping for these (I don't want to map all physical memory in the kernel for security reasons).