Re: cap exchange race with map/unmap

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hello,

Marcus Brinkmann <address@hidden> writes:

> At Tue, 18 Oct 2005 14:27:56 -0400,
> "Jonathan S. Shapiro" <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> [A broken protocol snipped]
>
>> I believe that the only possible protocol that could be correct is for
>> all object servers to return by way of CapServer.
>
> I agree.  This is exactly what I proposed in my talk in Dijon.
>
> The server maps a revocable copy to the cap server.  The cap server
> maps another revocable copy to each client.

Marcus, how is this different from what Jonathan described in
<address@hidden>, that is:

  In the absence of any authority to fabricate new capabilities, the
  following chain of mappings is now in effect after the exchange:

        RevCopy                RevCopy
     A ----------> CapServer -----------> B


It feels like the CapServer thing is anyway quite complex compared to
having a primitive COPY operation.

Thanks,
Ludovic.