Fwd: Re: The Perils of Pluggability

[ness]

> Hello,
>
> On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 01:23:29PM -0400, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2005-10-09 at 10:14 +0200, ness wrote:
> >
> > > I guess one of the design goals of the Hurd is to NOT depend on the
> > > implementation of a server. As far as I know, we don't want to ask "is
> > > the implementation of this server trustible?" but ask "is the source
> > > where I got this cap trustible?". We want to allow the user to replace
> > > system components. To e.g. run a new task that uses a different proc
> > > server. So the user says that to it's shell and the shell gives the
> > > right cap to the newly created task. But marcus identified sth. like
> > > your "identify" operation as necessary, AFAIK.

You mix up two things here (or me). Identify (or
cmp/map_lookup/whatever) says whether the cap a client passed to a
server was mapped by the server (in kernel-based caps). See
http://os.inf.tu-dresden.de/pipermail/l4-hackers/2005/002140.html.
--
-ness-