At Fri, 28 Oct 2005 20:34:09 +0200, Bernhard Kauer wrote: > > > The problem with L4.sec is the following: It does currently not have > > all the operations that we think we need (I am thinking specifically > > about efficient capability copy and identification). > > Just some comments from the L4.sec perspective: > > The identification via read_badge() is something which will in my > opinion be part of the kernel if we do not come with a better solution > to solve the multiple capability-parameters problem. Since the read_badge() > operation could change, it is currently called "experimental" in the spec. > > Now to copy(): I know no functional argument to introduce a copy() into > L4.sec.
Have you considered this argument [1]? I'd be interested in hearing the reactions from the L4.sec perspective. > The only argument is performance. Because mapping (or copy) a > return endpoint with every RPC will be too expensive, server protocols > will be session based. To establish a new session with a server the > server has to be called anyway, which nullifies the advantage of copy(). I don't understand this. Could you please elaborate what "server protocols will be session based" means? Perhaps with an illustration of what you envision? > Beside this, both operations are implementable with around 30 lines of > code each, which makes these features not very critical. Which features do you mean exactly? Thanks, Neal [1] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/l4-hurd/2005-10/msg00361.html _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
