On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 07:20:39PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Thomas Schwinge, le Thu 09 May 2013 18:42:18 +0200, a écrit : > > Then, to what extent are the proposed new RPCs just a specialized > > variant of the generic "port info" RPC that we have been musing about, > > <http://darnassus.sceen.net/~hurd-web/open_issues/translate_fd_or_port_to_file_name/>, > > in particular the log from IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-03-07? To me it > > would make sense to follow the latter route, so be able to store with > > every generic port some bits of debugging/logging information > > Indeed.
A potential problem with that approach is that, unlike the common case, where the object associated to a port is targetted, the port itself is the object here. The server managing it is then always the kernel, which might interfere with message passing. A simple solution would be to create raw system calls, but I'm not sure that's something we want to do as it can be handy to emulate kernel calls. Another solution is to restrict these RPCs to kernel objects only. -- Richard Braun
