Re: kernel command line

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Roland McGrath <roland@gnu.org> writes:

> > That's correct, but in the model of just "return null if the parent is
> > gone", why is this a problem?
> 
> This model makes it impossible to guarantee an assignment of the task to
> its original Hurdish ancestor.  I think that guarantee is the most valuable
> part of the feature, because it allows unregistered Mach tasks to be
> controlled by a non-root user who created them.

Hrm, I think I'm confused.

The original Hurdish ancestor only has to remain alive for long enough
for proc to establish its record and copy the owner ID.  If the kernel
actively notifies proc as soon as the process is created with this
information, we can be guaranteed it gets captured and recorded.

What does it matter what happens later?