At Fri, 4 Nov 2005 09:19:01 -0700, "Christopher Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Without assuming _anything_ about their relationship, the two > > threads _can_ _not_ communicate. > > I was assuming only that they had a communication relationship. It's > not important what the specifics of that relationship are.
If they have a communication relationship, then they already have a contract. What does this contract look like? You are evading a question that is critical to answer before doing the analysis. Here is the reason why: > equivalent extent. The point was to illustrate that it is possible to > perform denial of resource if you allow arbitrary-length string transfer > even when the memory is allocated from someone else's address space > originally. This is not true. If for example A and B have exactly the same memory layout, and a symmetric trust relationship that involves coordination of memory regions, B will always be able to map exactly the same memory as A has. This is not a far-stretched scenario. Such relationships do exist. Thanks, Marcus _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
