Re: On PATH_MAX

[Marcus Brinkmann]

At Fri, 4 Nov 2005 09:19:01 -0700,
"Christopher Nelson" <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Without assuming _anything_ about their relationship, the two 
> > threads _can_ _not_ communicate.
> 
> I was assuming only that they had a communication relationship.  It's
> not important what the specifics of that relationship are.

If they have a communication relationship, then they already have a
contract.  What does this contract look like?

You are evading a question that is critical to answer before doing the
analysis.  Here is the reason why:
  
> equivalent extent.  The point was to illustrate that it is possible to
> perform denial of resource if you allow arbitrary-length string transfer
> even when the memory is allocated from someone else's address space
> originally.

This is not true.  If for example A and B have exactly the same memory
layout, and a symmetric trust relationship that involves coordination
of memory regions, B will always be able to map exactly the same
memory as A has.

This is not a far-stretched scenario.  Such relationships do exist.

Thanks,
Marcus