Re: Challenge: Find potential use cases for non-trivial confinement

[Bas Wijnen]

On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 02:03:36PM +0200, Pierre THIERRY wrote:
> Scribit Bas Wijnen dies 18/05/2006 hora 13:30:
> > > That's always the parent, but not in the same way.
> > As I just wrote in a separate e-mail, that's not how I use the word
> > "parent".
> 
> I'm not sure, but you may be the only one.

That would not be good.  However, I don't see how any other definition could
make sense.  You say the parent is the one which provides the storage.  Why?
Why not the one which provides the CPU time?  Or any other resource?

The fact that the process which provides the storage and the one which
actually creates the process are not the same is new for us, and sometimes
confusing.  But since all resources can come from different sources, I don't
see why one of them would create a "parent" relationship while the others
wouldn't.

By the way, I'm talking a lot about trivial confinement, in which case there
is no problem, because the process which makes the system call also provides
all the resources, so it obviously is the parent.

> > To me, the parent is the process performing the system call creating
> > the process, which will be the constructor if it is used.
> > 
> > Hopefully this will reduce the confusion a bit...
> 
> If you have come up with a terminology that noone ever used before and
> noone except you is using right now, not at all.

I agree.  I don't have the feeling this is the case though.

Thanks,
Bas

-- 
I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org).
If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader.
Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text
   in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word.
Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either.
For more information, see http://129.125.47.90/e-mail.html

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature