Rings and run levels
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
The question stated below might not be technically correct(misconception) so it would be appreciable if misconception is also addressed.
Which ring level do the different *nix run levels operate in?
Ring tag not available.
kernel architecture runlevel
edited Oct 11 '13 at 21:37
peterph
23.3k24457
asked Oct 11 '13 at 18:17
Bleeding Fingers
446721
add a comment |
The question stated below might not be technically correct(misconception) so it would be appreciable if misconception is also addressed.
Which ring level do the different *nix run levels operate in?
Ring tag not available.
kernel architecture runlevel
edited Oct 11 '13 at 21:37
peterph
23.3k24457
asked Oct 11 '13 at 18:17
Bleeding Fingers
446721
add a comment |
The question stated below might not be technically correct(misconception) so it would be appreciable if misconception is also addressed.
Which ring level do the different *nix run levels operate in?
Ring tag not available.
kernel architecture runlevel
edited Oct 11 '13 at 21:37
peterph
23.3k24457
asked Oct 11 '13 at 18:17
Bleeding Fingers
446721
The question stated below might not be technically correct(misconception) so it would be appreciable if misconception is also addressed.
Which ring level do the different *nix run levels operate in?
Ring tag not available.
kernel architecture runlevel
kernel architecture runlevel
edited Oct 11 '13 at 21:37
peterph
23.3k24457
asked Oct 11 '13 at 18:17
Bleeding Fingers
446721
edited Oct 11 '13 at 21:37
peterph
23.3k24457
asked Oct 11 '13 at 18:17
Bleeding Fingers
446721
edited Oct 11 '13 at 21:37
peterph
23.3k24457
edited Oct 11 '13 at 21:37
peterph
23.3k24457
edited Oct 11 '13 at 21:37
peterph
23.3k24457
23.3k24457
asked Oct 11 '13 at 18:17
Bleeding Fingers
446721
asked Oct 11 '13 at 18:17
Bleeding Fingers
446721
asked Oct 11 '13 at 18:17
Bleeding Fingers
446721
446721
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
Unix runlevels are orthogonal (in the sense "unrelated", "independent of" - see comments) to protection rings.
Runlevels are basically a run time configurations/states of the operating system as a whole, they describe what services are available ("to the user") - like SSH access, MTA, file server, GUI.
Rings are a hardware aided concept which allows finer grained control over the hardware (as mentioned in the wikipedia page you link to). For example code running in higher Ring may not be able to execute some CPU instructions.
Linux on the x86 architecture usually uses Ring0 for kernel (including device drivers) and Ring3 for userspace applications (regerdless of whether they are run by root or another ordinary or privileged user).
Hence you can't really say that a runlevel is running in some specific Ring - there are always1 userspace applications (at least PID 1 - the init) running in Ring3 and the kernel (Ring0).
1As always, the "always" really means "almost always", since you can run "normal" programs in Ring0, but you are unlikely to see that in real life (unless you work on HPC).
answered Oct 11 '13 at 19:24
peterph
23.3k24457
when you say orthogonal do you mean Capability-based security?
– Bleeding Fingers
Oct 11 '13 at 19:29
1
No, orthogonal as in independent (meanings 3-5 on that wiktionary page). What made you think of Capability-based security?
– peterph
Oct 11 '13 at 19:32
2
High Performance Computing(HPC)?
– Bleeding Fingers
Oct 11 '13 at 19:50
2
Yes, High Performance Computing - the thing is, that normally applications make a lots of syscalls (requests to the kernel like accessing files, network etc.) and these incur a penalty for crossing witching execution between the Rings. Now, if you put your code into the same Ring as kernel, you can gain some performance on removing the need for these switches. Your code has to be written/tested more carefully, since it has access to things it normally hasn't and thus could potentially cause bigger disaster. :)
– peterph
Oct 11 '13 at 21:28
1
@peterph I think orthogonal is a fantastic word, but unfortunately, I think many may not know the word. Might be worth putting a simpler term in, at least in parentheses after orthogonal.
– kurtm
Oct 12 '13 at 0:20
|
show 5 more comments
The two concepts are completely unrelated. The system run level refers to the set of services that are running on the system, such as whether or not the gui desktop environment is running. Ring levels are a hardware protection mechanism on intel x86 processors that separate code into different privelege levels. Linux only uses rings 0 and 3 for kernel and user mode code respectively. Thus, all user mode processes, running when the system is in any run level execute in ring 3, until they make a call into kernel code, which transitions the cpu to ring 0.
answered Oct 12 '13 at 4:07
psusi
13.5k22439
add a comment |
From your own link:
In a monolithic kernel, the operating system runs in supervisor mode
and the applications run in user mode. Other types of operating
systems, like those with an exokernel or microkernel, do not
necessarily share this behavior.
Some examples from the PC world:
Linux and Windows are two operating systems that use
supervisor/user-mode. To perform specialized functions, user-mode code
must perform a system call into supervisor mode or even to the kernel
space where trusted code of the operating system will perform the
needed task and return it back to user space.
So your answer would be 2. The supervisor (0) and the user (1).
edited Oct 11 '13 at 19:11
Bleeding Fingers
446721
answered Oct 11 '13 at 18:34
Jeight
1,87411125
-1 That's not really answer to the question Which ring level do the different *nix run levels operate in?
– peterph
Oct 11 '13 at 19:15
@peterph Your answer was the same ROOT and USER. I'll give that you explained better, but his answer was already in the link he gave.
– Jeight
Oct 11 '13 at 19:52
1
Yes, the answer is basically there - my complaint referred to your interpretation of it. Rings do not have anything to do with privileged (root) and unprivileged users, rather with kernel space/user space difference. And that's what my -1 has been for (I'm sorry that I haven't stated that explicitly).
– peterph
Oct 11 '13 at 21:33
@peterph Most people don't understand the difference between privileged/unprivileged users and kernel space/user space. Yes I should have put Kernel instead of supervisor, but I was just copying the quote from the article to make a point. I'm sorry that bothered you. I know you think I lot of new users are just copying and pasting from google without understanding what they are saying (I read your post), but maybe you should review someones question/answer history before jumping to conclusions.
– Jeight
Oct 11 '13 at 21:54
1
No need for reviewing anyone's history - I'm not arguing ad personam. It is the answer in its current form that in my opinion is wrong.
– peterph
Oct 11 '13 at 22:22
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f94663%2frings-and-run-levels%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Unix runlevels are orthogonal (in the sense "unrelated", "independent of" - see comments) to protection rings.
Runlevels are basically a run time configurations/states of the operating system as a whole, they describe what services are available ("to the user") - like SSH access, MTA, file server, GUI.
Rings are a hardware aided concept which allows finer grained control over the hardware (as mentioned in the wikipedia page you link to). For example code running in higher Ring may not be able to execute some CPU instructions.
Linux on the x86 architecture usually uses Ring0 for kernel (including device drivers) and Ring3 for userspace applications (regerdless of whether they are run by root or another ordinary or privileged user).
Hence you can't really say that a runlevel is running in some specific Ring - there are always1 userspace applications (at least PID 1 - the init) running in Ring3 and the kernel (Ring0).
1As always, the "always" really means "almost always", since you can run "normal" programs in Ring0, but you are unlikely to see that in real life (unless you work on HPC).
answered Oct 11 '13 at 19:24
peterph
23.3k24457
when you say orthogonal do you mean Capability-based security?
– Bleeding Fingers
Oct 11 '13 at 19:29
1
No, orthogonal as in independent (meanings 3-5 on that wiktionary page). What made you think of Capability-based security?
– peterph
Oct 11 '13 at 19:32
2
High Performance Computing(HPC)?
– Bleeding Fingers
Oct 11 '13 at 19:50
2
Yes, High Performance Computing - the thing is, that normally applications make a lots of syscalls (requests to the kernel like accessing files, network etc.) and these incur a penalty for crossing witching execution between the Rings. Now, if you put your code into the same Ring as kernel, you can gain some performance on removing the need for these switches. Your code has to be written/tested more carefully, since it has access to things it normally hasn't and thus could potentially cause bigger disaster. :)
– peterph
Oct 11 '13 at 21:28
1
@peterph I think orthogonal is a fantastic word, but unfortunately, I think many may not know the word. Might be worth putting a simpler term in, at least in parentheses after orthogonal.
– kurtm
Oct 12 '13 at 0:20
|
show 5 more comments
Unix runlevels are orthogonal (in the sense "unrelated", "independent of" - see comments) to protection rings.
Runlevels are basically a run time configurations/states of the operating system as a whole, they describe what services are available ("to the user") - like SSH access, MTA, file server, GUI.
Rings are a hardware aided concept which allows finer grained control over the hardware (as mentioned in the wikipedia page you link to). For example code running in higher Ring may not be able to execute some CPU instructions.
Linux on the x86 architecture usually uses Ring0 for kernel (including device drivers) and Ring3 for userspace applications (regerdless of whether they are run by root or another ordinary or privileged user).
Hence you can't really say that a runlevel is running in some specific Ring - there are always1 userspace applications (at least PID 1 - the init) running in Ring3 and the kernel (Ring0).
1As always, the "always" really means "almost always", since you can run "normal" programs in Ring0, but you are unlikely to see that in real life (unless you work on HPC).
answered Oct 11 '13 at 19:24
peterph
23.3k24457
when you say orthogonal do you mean Capability-based security?
– Bleeding Fingers
Oct 11 '13 at 19:29
1
No, orthogonal as in independent (meanings 3-5 on that wiktionary page). What made you think of Capability-based security?
– peterph
Oct 11 '13 at 19:32
2
High Performance Computing(HPC)?
– Bleeding Fingers
Oct 11 '13 at 19:50
2
Yes, High Performance Computing - the thing is, that normally applications make a lots of syscalls (requests to the kernel like accessing files, network etc.) and these incur a penalty for crossing witching execution between the Rings. Now, if you put your code into the same Ring as kernel, you can gain some performance on removing the need for these switches. Your code has to be written/tested more carefully, since it has access to things it normally hasn't and thus could potentially cause bigger disaster. :)
– peterph
Oct 11 '13 at 21:28
1
@peterph I think orthogonal is a fantastic word, but unfortunately, I think many may not know the word. Might be worth putting a simpler term in, at least in parentheses after orthogonal.
– kurtm
Oct 12 '13 at 0:20
|
show 5 more comments
Unix runlevels are orthogonal (in the sense "unrelated", "independent of" - see comments) to protection rings.
Runlevels are basically a run time configurations/states of the operating system as a whole, they describe what services are available ("to the user") - like SSH access, MTA, file server, GUI.
Rings are a hardware aided concept which allows finer grained control over the hardware (as mentioned in the wikipedia page you link to). For example code running in higher Ring may not be able to execute some CPU instructions.
Linux on the x86 architecture usually uses Ring0 for kernel (including device drivers) and Ring3 for userspace applications (regerdless of whether they are run by root or another ordinary or privileged user).
Hence you can't really say that a runlevel is running in some specific Ring - there are always1 userspace applications (at least PID 1 - the init) running in Ring3 and the kernel (Ring0).
1As always, the "always" really means "almost always", since you can run "normal" programs in Ring0, but you are unlikely to see that in real life (unless you work on HPC).
answered Oct 11 '13 at 19:24
peterph
23.3k24457
Unix runlevels are orthogonal (in the sense "unrelated", "independent of" - see comments) to protection rings.
Runlevels are basically a run time configurations/states of the operating system as a whole, they describe what services are available ("to the user") - like SSH access, MTA, file server, GUI.
Rings are a hardware aided concept which allows finer grained control over the hardware (as mentioned in the wikipedia page you link to). For example code running in higher Ring may not be able to execute some CPU instructions.
Linux on the x86 architecture usually uses Ring0 for kernel (including device drivers) and Ring3 for userspace applications (regerdless of whether they are run by root or another ordinary or privileged user).
Hence you can't really say that a runlevel is running in some specific Ring - there are always1 userspace applications (at least PID 1 - the init) running in Ring3 and the kernel (Ring0).
1As always, the "always" really means "almost always", since you can run "normal" programs in Ring0, but you are unlikely to see that in real life (unless you work on HPC).
answered Oct 11 '13 at 19:24
peterph
23.3k24457
edited Dec 22 '18 at 22:30
answered Oct 11 '13 at 19:24
peterph
23.3k24457
answered Oct 11 '13 at 19:24
peterph
23.3k24457
answered Oct 11 '13 at 19:24
peterph
23.3k24457
23.3k24457
when you say orthogonal do you mean Capability-based security?
– Bleeding Fingers
Oct 11 '13 at 19:29
1
No, orthogonal as in independent (meanings 3-5 on that wiktionary page). What made you think of Capability-based security?
– peterph
Oct 11 '13 at 19:32
2
High Performance Computing(HPC)?
– Bleeding Fingers
Oct 11 '13 at 19:50
2
Yes, High Performance Computing - the thing is, that normally applications make a lots of syscalls (requests to the kernel like accessing files, network etc.) and these incur a penalty for crossing witching execution between the Rings. Now, if you put your code into the same Ring as kernel, you can gain some performance on removing the need for these switches. Your code has to be written/tested more carefully, since it has access to things it normally hasn't and thus could potentially cause bigger disaster. :)
– peterph
Oct 11 '13 at 21:28
1
@peterph I think orthogonal is a fantastic word, but unfortunately, I think many may not know the word. Might be worth putting a simpler term in, at least in parentheses after orthogonal.
– kurtm
Oct 12 '13 at 0:20
|
show 5 more comments
when you say orthogonal do you mean Capability-based security?
– Bleeding Fingers
Oct 11 '13 at 19:29
1
No, orthogonal as in independent (meanings 3-5 on that wiktionary page). What made you think of Capability-based security?
– peterph
Oct 11 '13 at 19:32
2
High Performance Computing(HPC)?
– Bleeding Fingers
Oct 11 '13 at 19:50
2
Yes, High Performance Computing - the thing is, that normally applications make a lots of syscalls (requests to the kernel like accessing files, network etc.) and these incur a penalty for crossing witching execution between the Rings. Now, if you put your code into the same Ring as kernel, you can gain some performance on removing the need for these switches. Your code has to be written/tested more carefully, since it has access to things it normally hasn't and thus could potentially cause bigger disaster. :)
– peterph
Oct 11 '13 at 21:28
1
@peterph I think orthogonal is a fantastic word, but unfortunately, I think many may not know the word. Might be worth putting a simpler term in, at least in parentheses after orthogonal.
– kurtm
Oct 12 '13 at 0:20
when you say orthogonal do you mean Capability-based security?
– Bleeding Fingers
Oct 11 '13 at 19:29
when you say orthogonal do you mean Capability-based security?
– Bleeding Fingers
Oct 11 '13 at 19:29
1
1
No, orthogonal as in independent (meanings 3-5 on that wiktionary page). What made you think of Capability-based security?
– peterph
Oct 11 '13 at 19:32
No, orthogonal as in independent (meanings 3-5 on that wiktionary page). What made you think of Capability-based security?
– peterph
Oct 11 '13 at 19:32
2
2
High Performance Computing(HPC)?
– Bleeding Fingers
Oct 11 '13 at 19:50
High Performance Computing(HPC)?
– Bleeding Fingers
Oct 11 '13 at 19:50
2
2
Yes, High Performance Computing - the thing is, that normally applications make a lots of syscalls (requests to the kernel like accessing files, network etc.) and these incur a penalty for crossing witching execution between the Rings. Now, if you put your code into the same Ring as kernel, you can gain some performance on removing the need for these switches. Your code has to be written/tested more carefully, since it has access to things it normally hasn't and thus could potentially cause bigger disaster. :)
– peterph
Oct 11 '13 at 21:28
Yes, High Performance Computing - the thing is, that normally applications make a lots of syscalls (requests to the kernel like accessing files, network etc.) and these incur a penalty for crossing witching execution between the Rings. Now, if you put your code into the same Ring as kernel, you can gain some performance on removing the need for these switches. Your code has to be written/tested more carefully, since it has access to things it normally hasn't and thus could potentially cause bigger disaster. :)
– peterph
Oct 11 '13 at 21:28
1
1
@peterph I think orthogonal is a fantastic word, but unfortunately, I think many may not know the word. Might be worth putting a simpler term in, at least in parentheses after orthogonal.
– kurtm
Oct 12 '13 at 0:20
@peterph I think orthogonal is a fantastic word, but unfortunately, I think many may not know the word. Might be worth putting a simpler term in, at least in parentheses after orthogonal.
– kurtm
Oct 12 '13 at 0:20
|
show 5 more comments
The two concepts are completely unrelated. The system run level refers to the set of services that are running on the system, such as whether or not the gui desktop environment is running. Ring levels are a hardware protection mechanism on intel x86 processors that separate code into different privelege levels. Linux only uses rings 0 and 3 for kernel and user mode code respectively. Thus, all user mode processes, running when the system is in any run level execute in ring 3, until they make a call into kernel code, which transitions the cpu to ring 0.
answered Oct 12 '13 at 4:07
psusi
13.5k22439
add a comment |
The two concepts are completely unrelated. The system run level refers to the set of services that are running on the system, such as whether or not the gui desktop environment is running. Ring levels are a hardware protection mechanism on intel x86 processors that separate code into different privelege levels. Linux only uses rings 0 and 3 for kernel and user mode code respectively. Thus, all user mode processes, running when the system is in any run level execute in ring 3, until they make a call into kernel code, which transitions the cpu to ring 0.
answered Oct 12 '13 at 4:07
psusi
13.5k22439
add a comment |
The two concepts are completely unrelated. The system run level refers to the set of services that are running on the system, such as whether or not the gui desktop environment is running. Ring levels are a hardware protection mechanism on intel x86 processors that separate code into different privelege levels. Linux only uses rings 0 and 3 for kernel and user mode code respectively. Thus, all user mode processes, running when the system is in any run level execute in ring 3, until they make a call into kernel code, which transitions the cpu to ring 0.
answered Oct 12 '13 at 4:07
psusi
13.5k22439
The two concepts are completely unrelated. The system run level refers to the set of services that are running on the system, such as whether or not the gui desktop environment is running. Ring levels are a hardware protection mechanism on intel x86 processors that separate code into different privelege levels. Linux only uses rings 0 and 3 for kernel and user mode code respectively. Thus, all user mode processes, running when the system is in any run level execute in ring 3, until they make a call into kernel code, which transitions the cpu to ring 0.
answered Oct 12 '13 at 4:07
psusi
13.5k22439
answered Oct 12 '13 at 4:07
psusi
13.5k22439
answered Oct 12 '13 at 4:07
psusi
13.5k22439
answered Oct 12 '13 at 4:07
psusi
13.5k22439
13.5k22439
add a comment |
add a comment |
From your own link:
In a monolithic kernel, the operating system runs in supervisor mode
and the applications run in user mode. Other types of operating
systems, like those with an exokernel or microkernel, do not
necessarily share this behavior.
Some examples from the PC world:
Linux and Windows are two operating systems that use
supervisor/user-mode. To perform specialized functions, user-mode code
must perform a system call into supervisor mode or even to the kernel
space where trusted code of the operating system will perform the
needed task and return it back to user space.
So your answer would be 2. The supervisor (0) and the user (1).
edited Oct 11 '13 at 19:11
Bleeding Fingers
446721
answered Oct 11 '13 at 18:34
Jeight
1,87411125
-1 That's not really answer to the question Which ring level do the different *nix run levels operate in?
– peterph
Oct 11 '13 at 19:15
@peterph Your answer was the same ROOT and USER. I'll give that you explained better, but his answer was already in the link he gave.
– Jeight
Oct 11 '13 at 19:52
1
Yes, the answer is basically there - my complaint referred to your interpretation of it. Rings do not have anything to do with privileged (root) and unprivileged users, rather with kernel space/user space difference. And that's what my -1 has been for (I'm sorry that I haven't stated that explicitly).
– peterph
Oct 11 '13 at 21:33
@peterph Most people don't understand the difference between privileged/unprivileged users and kernel space/user space. Yes I should have put Kernel instead of supervisor, but I was just copying the quote from the article to make a point. I'm sorry that bothered you. I know you think I lot of new users are just copying and pasting from google without understanding what they are saying (I read your post), but maybe you should review someones question/answer history before jumping to conclusions.
– Jeight
Oct 11 '13 at 21:54
1
No need for reviewing anyone's history - I'm not arguing ad personam. It is the answer in its current form that in my opinion is wrong.
– peterph
Oct 11 '13 at 22:22
add a comment |
From your own link:
In a monolithic kernel, the operating system runs in supervisor mode
and the applications run in user mode. Other types of operating
systems, like those with an exokernel or microkernel, do not
necessarily share this behavior.
Some examples from the PC world:
Linux and Windows are two operating systems that use
supervisor/user-mode. To perform specialized functions, user-mode code
must perform a system call into supervisor mode or even to the kernel
space where trusted code of the operating system will perform the
needed task and return it back to user space.
So your answer would be 2. The supervisor (0) and the user (1).
edited Oct 11 '13 at 19:11
Bleeding Fingers
446721
answered Oct 11 '13 at 18:34
Jeight
1,87411125
-1 That's not really answer to the question Which ring level do the different *nix run levels operate in?
– peterph
Oct 11 '13 at 19:15
@peterph Your answer was the same ROOT and USER. I'll give that you explained better, but his answer was already in the link he gave.
– Jeight
Oct 11 '13 at 19:52
1
Yes, the answer is basically there - my complaint referred to your interpretation of it. Rings do not have anything to do with privileged (root) and unprivileged users, rather with kernel space/user space difference. And that's what my -1 has been for (I'm sorry that I haven't stated that explicitly).
– peterph
Oct 11 '13 at 21:33
@peterph Most people don't understand the difference between privileged/unprivileged users and kernel space/user space. Yes I should have put Kernel instead of supervisor, but I was just copying the quote from the article to make a point. I'm sorry that bothered you. I know you think I lot of new users are just copying and pasting from google without understanding what they are saying (I read your post), but maybe you should review someones question/answer history before jumping to conclusions.
– Jeight
Oct 11 '13 at 21:54
1
No need for reviewing anyone's history - I'm not arguing ad personam. It is the answer in its current form that in my opinion is wrong.
– peterph
Oct 11 '13 at 22:22
add a comment |
From your own link:
In a monolithic kernel, the operating system runs in supervisor mode
and the applications run in user mode. Other types of operating
systems, like those with an exokernel or microkernel, do not
necessarily share this behavior.
Some examples from the PC world:
Linux and Windows are two operating systems that use
supervisor/user-mode. To perform specialized functions, user-mode code
must perform a system call into supervisor mode or even to the kernel
space where trusted code of the operating system will perform the
needed task and return it back to user space.
So your answer would be 2. The supervisor (0) and the user (1).
edited Oct 11 '13 at 19:11
Bleeding Fingers
446721
answered Oct 11 '13 at 18:34
Jeight
1,87411125
From your own link:
In a monolithic kernel, the operating system runs in supervisor mode
and the applications run in user mode. Other types of operating
systems, like those with an exokernel or microkernel, do not
necessarily share this behavior.
Some examples from the PC world:
Linux and Windows are two operating systems that use
supervisor/user-mode. To perform specialized functions, user-mode code
must perform a system call into supervisor mode or even to the kernel
space where trusted code of the operating system will perform the
needed task and return it back to user space.
So your answer would be 2. The supervisor (0) and the user (1).
edited Oct 11 '13 at 19:11
Bleeding Fingers
446721
answered Oct 11 '13 at 18:34
Jeight
1,87411125
edited Oct 11 '13 at 19:11
Bleeding Fingers
446721
edited Oct 11 '13 at 19:11
Bleeding Fingers
446721
edited Oct 11 '13 at 19:11
Bleeding Fingers
446721
446721
answered Oct 11 '13 at 18:34
Jeight
1,87411125
answered Oct 11 '13 at 18:34
Jeight
1,87411125
answered Oct 11 '13 at 18:34
Jeight
1,87411125
1,87411125
-1 That's not really answer to the question Which ring level do the different *nix run levels operate in?
– peterph
Oct 11 '13 at 19:15
@peterph Your answer was the same ROOT and USER. I'll give that you explained better, but his answer was already in the link he gave.
– Jeight
Oct 11 '13 at 19:52
1
Yes, the answer is basically there - my complaint referred to your interpretation of it. Rings do not have anything to do with privileged (root) and unprivileged users, rather with kernel space/user space difference. And that's what my -1 has been for (I'm sorry that I haven't stated that explicitly).
– peterph
Oct 11 '13 at 21:33
@peterph Most people don't understand the difference between privileged/unprivileged users and kernel space/user space. Yes I should have put Kernel instead of supervisor, but I was just copying the quote from the article to make a point. I'm sorry that bothered you. I know you think I lot of new users are just copying and pasting from google without understanding what they are saying (I read your post), but maybe you should review someones question/answer history before jumping to conclusions.
– Jeight
Oct 11 '13 at 21:54
1
No need for reviewing anyone's history - I'm not arguing ad personam. It is the answer in its current form that in my opinion is wrong.
– peterph
Oct 11 '13 at 22:22
add a comment |
-1 That's not really answer to the question Which ring level do the different *nix run levels operate in?
– peterph
Oct 11 '13 at 19:15
@peterph Your answer was the same ROOT and USER. I'll give that you explained better, but his answer was already in the link he gave.
– Jeight
Oct 11 '13 at 19:52
1
Yes, the answer is basically there - my complaint referred to your interpretation of it. Rings do not have anything to do with privileged (root) and unprivileged users, rather with kernel space/user space difference. And that's what my -1 has been for (I'm sorry that I haven't stated that explicitly).
– peterph
Oct 11 '13 at 21:33
@peterph Most people don't understand the difference between privileged/unprivileged users and kernel space/user space. Yes I should have put Kernel instead of supervisor, but I was just copying the quote from the article to make a point. I'm sorry that bothered you. I know you think I lot of new users are just copying and pasting from google without understanding what they are saying (I read your post), but maybe you should review someones question/answer history before jumping to conclusions.
– Jeight
Oct 11 '13 at 21:54
1
No need for reviewing anyone's history - I'm not arguing ad personam. It is the answer in its current form that in my opinion is wrong.
– peterph
Oct 11 '13 at 22:22
-1 That's not really answer to the question Which ring level do the different *nix run levels operate in?
– peterph
Oct 11 '13 at 19:15
-1 That's not really answer to the question Which ring level do the different *nix run levels operate in?
– peterph
Oct 11 '13 at 19:15
@peterph Your answer was the same ROOT and USER. I'll give that you explained better, but his answer was already in the link he gave.
– Jeight
Oct 11 '13 at 19:52
@peterph Your answer was the same ROOT and USER. I'll give that you explained better, but his answer was already in the link he gave.
– Jeight
Oct 11 '13 at 19:52
1
1
Yes, the answer is basically there - my complaint referred to your interpretation of it. Rings do not have anything to do with privileged (root) and unprivileged users, rather with kernel space/user space difference. And that's what my -1 has been for (I'm sorry that I haven't stated that explicitly).
– peterph
Oct 11 '13 at 21:33
Yes, the answer is basically there - my complaint referred to your interpretation of it. Rings do not have anything to do with privileged (root) and unprivileged users, rather with kernel space/user space difference. And that's what my -1 has been for (I'm sorry that I haven't stated that explicitly).
– peterph
Oct 11 '13 at 21:33
@peterph Most people don't understand the difference between privileged/unprivileged users and kernel space/user space. Yes I should have put Kernel instead of supervisor, but I was just copying the quote from the article to make a point. I'm sorry that bothered you. I know you think I lot of new users are just copying and pasting from google without understanding what they are saying (I read your post), but maybe you should review someones question/answer history before jumping to conclusions.
– Jeight
Oct 11 '13 at 21:54
@peterph Most people don't understand the difference between privileged/unprivileged users and kernel space/user space. Yes I should have put Kernel instead of supervisor, but I was just copying the quote from the article to make a point. I'm sorry that bothered you. I know you think I lot of new users are just copying and pasting from google without understanding what they are saying (I read your post), but maybe you should review someones question/answer history before jumping to conclusions.
– Jeight
Oct 11 '13 at 21:54
1
1
No need for reviewing anyone's history - I'm not arguing ad personam. It is the answer in its current form that in my opinion is wrong.
– peterph
Oct 11 '13 at 22:22
No need for reviewing anyone's history - I'm not arguing ad personam. It is the answer in its current form that in my opinion is wrong.
– peterph
Oct 11 '13 at 22:22
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f94663%2frings-and-run-levels%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
