"Brent W. Baccala" writes:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 9:17 AM, Kalle Olavi Niemitalo wrote:
>
>> A future version of rpctrace might want to move receive rights
>> if it were able to attach to a preexisting task.
>
> That's an important and interesting application that I hadn't thought of.
strace
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 9:17 AM, Kalle Olavi Niemitalo wrote:
>
> A future version of rpctrace might want to move receive rights
> if it were able to attach to a preexisting task.
>
That's an important and interesting application that I hadn't thought of.
Now I'm wondering - how would DEAD NAME
Richard Braun writes:
> I don't believe the Hurd ever moves receive rights, and if it is,
> it's most certainly very limited and local.
proc_handle_exceptions and startup_essential_task have a
"msgport: mach_port_move_receive_t" parameter.
In glibc, hurd/hurdfault.c (_hurdsig_fault_init) create
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 04:32:15PM -1000, Brent W. Baccala wrote:
> 'netmsg' is progressing nicely. I'm developing a test suite for it, and
> have encountered an oblique case that's causing me some grief.
>
> The problem is related to NO SENDERS notifications, which currently remain
> attached to
