1993-06-10 - Re: CryptoStacker Update

Header Data

From: RYAN Alan Porter <ryan@rtfm.mlb.fl.us>
To: Jonathan K Saville <ee92jks@brunel.ac.uk>
Message Hash: 30e8231e4acdc27b75e2e0a4f44a49f456244b5d30fbd53eec3ca529c8c45b95
Message ID: <Pine.3.03.9306101635.B21132-a100000@rtfm>
Reply To: <18312.9306101807@monge.brunel.ac.uk>
UTC Datetime: 1993-06-10 20:56:27 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 10 Jun 93 13:56:27 PDT

Raw message

From: RYAN Alan Porter <ryan@rtfm.mlb.fl.us>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 93 13:56:27 PDT
To: Jonathan K Saville <ee92jks@brunel.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: CryptoStacker Update
In-Reply-To: <18312.9306101807@monge.brunel.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.03.9306101635.B21132-a100000@rtfm>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




On Thu, 10 Jun 1993, Jonathan K Saville wrote:

> 
> Re: possible problems with INT13
> 
> I may be mistaken, but I have this feeling that DPMI servers (including
> MS Windows) react unkindly to people using INT13. This is certainly what
> the Borland Open Architecture handbook says. If your program is resident
> when such a server is running, it could throw up a General Protection
> fault. I will check into this myself...

The programs running on the system will not be using INT13.  They will use
the higher level interrupts that they normally use.  The block driver
exists below all of that and merely controls what happens once the higher
level interrupts already call INT13.

I don't think that it will be any problem, certainly less of a problem
than if I tried to screw with higher level interrupts.


-=Ryan=-
the Bit Wallah










Thread