On Thu, 2005-10-27 at 12:12 +0100, Brian Brunswick wrote: > On 27/10/05, Alfred M. Szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > * pids are broken. They aren't persistent handles, like fds, so > > hello race conditions on anything using them. > > > > You cannot get away from race conditions, nor should pids be persitent > > in a non-persitent system. In other words, PID's aren't broken. > > By persistent, I mean on the the short term. You have absolutely /no > guarantee/ that the process you send a signal to is actually the same > one you just collected the pid for. They get re-used quite fast. They > should be like file handles instead, always referring to the same > object.
PLEASE can we avoid the term "persistent" for this? It will be terribly confusing. I suggest that a better word might be "durable". What you seem to want is some replacement for a PID that has the property that (a) as long at it exists, it is bound to the same process, and (b) it isn't reused. Hmm. Sounds like a process capability! Pids are also broken for another reason: they are public entries in a globally shared, mutable namespace. shap _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
