I have just spoken to Marcus to ask for an explanation of what "passive translators" are. There is some humor here.
As I have said, we considered *not* making Coyotos persistent. We have a design that is very similar to passive translators that would mostly work. We have not built it, but I *think* that it resolves most of the concerns about security that Marcus has identified. We decided not to do it for two reasons: 1. It would be *much* slower than just keeping persistence. 2. There is a problem of consistency across applications. In a component system where processes act as components, it isn't good enough in the general case to restart a process. What you really need to be able to do is to re-establish a connected graph of processes in such a way that all of them agree on their current state and their state relationships to their peers. For example: an IPC that was in progress at the time of checkpoint must be restored in such a way that it is still in progress at exactly the same point in the transfer. shap _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
