On 18 June 2010 09:36, Binyamin Dissen <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 07:12:58 -0600 Paul Gilmartin <[email protected]> > wrote: > > :>On Jun 17, 2010, at 11:59, Tony Harminc wrote: > > :>> Why does your authorized program: > > :>> 1) have to be ATTACHed (rather than, say, LINKed to)? Does it really > :>> have to run at the same time? >> > :>Does LINK as opposed to ATTACH make a difference? Can a nonauthorized > :>program LINK to an authorized program and have that program run > :>authorized? Can even XCTL do this/ > > No, and no.
Well, no, no, and sort-of. Sort-of in the sense that although XCTL can't do it, execmvs() can, with semantics a lot like those of XCTL. > No idea why that was suggested. I asked the question because use of ATTACH suggests that both invoking and invoked programs need to run at the same time, and that suggests that they have an ongoing need to pass data back and forth, i.e. beyond just calling arguments and return values. That is a much harder thing to do if the invoked program is to run in a separate address space, which is the second thing I suggested. Tony H.
