[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Niels Möller) writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
>
> > Right, but that's already a Hurd-specific extension. So it's fine to
> > expect it to use another Hurd-specific extension to get a reliable PID
> > or other identification.
>
> What would such an
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Right, but that's already a Hurd-specific extension. So it's fine to
> expect it to use another Hurd-specific extension to get a reliable PID
> or other identification.
What would such an extension look like?
/Niels
__
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mmh, we could restrict the monitor to trusted filesystems (eg /).
Right, but that's already a Hurd-specific extension. So it's fine to
expect it to use another Hurd-specific extension to get a reliable PID
or other identification.
> I am not reall
On Sat, May 11, 2002 at 06:02:18PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I think it is absolutely mandatory that we establish the PID in a
> > trustworthy way rather than let the user provide some unique ID on its own.
> > I think there is already
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think it is absolutely mandatory that we establish the PID in a
> trustworthy way rather than let the user provide some unique ID on its own.
> I think there is already a place in the Hurd where we should do that but
> don't (wasn't that term's ter
Hi,
for POSIX locking and shared memory, the filesystem needs to establish the
callers identity (its PID). Well, actually, in some cases, a system wide
unique ID would be enough. For example in the case of file locks, it would
be enough to have a send right to a receive right in the caller's ta
