On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 12:25 AM, Neal H. Walfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At Tue, 1 Apr 2008 18:01:25 -0600, > Joshua Stratton wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Neal H. Walfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > Please don't top post. > > > > > > At Tue, 1 Apr 2008 10:48:02 -0600, > > > Joshua Stratton wrote: > > > > > > > > The problem you described was the client owning the memory object, > > > sending > > > > it to the server, and the server having the ability to unmap the > memory > > > > because it has ownership, if I understand correctly. > > > > > > No. The client has the ability to DoS the server because it manages > > > the memory object. > > > > > > What exactly is the difference between manages and owns? > > I was using ownership as a synonym for accounted to, and manage as a > synonym for being able to control (e.g., schedule). So if the server > is accounted the memory but the client can control the memory, then > the server is susceptible to destructive interference from the client. > > > Do you think the client-side > > memory model is worthwhile? And would the server allocating the memory > > passing it to the client using the Mach semantics allow this client-side > > memory model while avoiding the ability for clients to unmap the > > data? > > Yes, I think such accounting is worthwhile, it is what I am doing with > Viengoos, however, I question the ability to realize it using Mach's > interfaces. What's Viengoos? Is that a new microkernel? > > > Neal >
