Re: Local IPC (was Re: Comparing "copy" and "map/unmap")

[Jonathan S. Shapiro]

On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 16:11 +0200, Espen Skoglund wrote:
> [Jonathan S Shapiro]
> >>> Local IPC was a bad idea, and is going away. It cannot be
> >>> implemented cleanly in a protected system in any case.
> >> 
> >> Why that?  If the protected objects are stored on kernel immutable
> >> memory, how could a thread modify it?  Or is the problem something
> >> completly different?
> 
> > The problem is that the semantics of local IPC was wrong, and it
> > wasn't wrong in a fixable way.
> 
> What have you been smoking this morning that makes you throw out
> claims like this?  This is news to me.  Please elaborate.  And who's
> decided that it's going away?  You?

Certainly not me. This is my recollection of one of the many discussions
that occurred at the Dresden meeting. If the recollection is incorrect,
please feel free to correct me.

I no longer remember many of the details of a meeting that occurred
years ago. I do remember that notes were taken from those meetings. It
is a shame that they are not available for the attendees to consult.
Perhaps this should be corrected.

shap