Quoting Richard Braun (2015-06-03 14:10:16) > On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 01:54:40PM +0200, Justus Winter wrote: > > I independently rediscovered that host port leak. I see two options > > how to proceed: > > The host and task ports actually don't leak, because they're unique to > a task, and Mach treats them as exceptions by never overruning the user > space ref count. This means that calling mach_host_self() a lot of times > results in a single name with a very high ref count, and nothing else.
Clamping user references like that is clearly a bad hack covering up sloppy programming. > This is the expected behaviour. Expected of what? The Mach messaging semantics? The behaviour is stupid. We should fix it. Justus
