[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Do we want a server on `/servers/machine' (or similar)?
From: |
Thomas Bushnell BSG |
Subject: |
Re: Do we want a server on `/servers/machine' (or similar)? |
Date: |
Fri, 11 May 2007 17:46:11 -0700 |
On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 23:45 +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Hello!
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 07:32:31PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Um, well, you could keep track of the relationship, and establish the
> > rule that a user of i386_io_perm_create sent to this special server must
> > keep the request port open as long as they want the mapping to stay
> > alive.
>
> Wouldn't there be a way to just _move_ the send right to the freshly
> created i/o permission kernel object to the target task (which is the
> requesting task in this case)? So far, I haven't been able to figure out
> how to do that correctly.
>
> Requestee R invokes `i386_io_perm_create' on the server S,
> `/servers/io_perm'. S invokes `i386_io_perm_create' on the device-master
> port, which returns a new handle H to a freshly created kernel object.
> Then S _moves_ H to R (*HOW?*) so that S itself won't reference H
> anymore. Then, as soon as R dies, H will become invalid and the kernel
> will receive a no-senders notification. Wouldn't it work that way?
Why not just reply with the right that the kernel has handed S?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Do we want a server on `/servers/machine' (or similar)?, Roland McGrath, 2007/05/13