[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: proxy memory objects
From: |
Marcus Brinkmann |
Subject: |
Re: proxy memory objects |
Date: |
Fri, 22 Nov 2002 11:14:41 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4i |
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 07:02:59PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Marcus Brinkmann <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > However, I think I will change the function name of the hack to
> > mach_create_memory_object_proxy, to illustrate the target of the RPC better
> > and leave the memory_object_* name space to the memory object (and control)
> > interface.
>
> Yes, I think this is the right strategy. So we need two additional
> interfaces, one called mach_create_memory_object_proxy, and one called
> memory_object_create_proxy.
Yes, but as I said, we don't need the latter one right away to fix the
security hole. It can be added at any later time just as well.
Thanks,
Marcus
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' GNU http://www.gnu.org address@hidden
Marcus Brinkmann The Hurd http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/
address@hidden
http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de/
- proxy memory objects, Marcus Brinkmann, 2002/11/19
- Re: proxy memory objects, Marcus Brinkmann, 2002/11/19
- Re: proxy memory objects, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2002/11/21
- Re: proxy memory objects, Marcus Brinkmann, 2002/11/21
- Re: proxy memory objects, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2002/11/21
- Re: proxy memory objects, Marcus Brinkmann, 2002/11/21
- Re: proxy memory objects, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2002/11/21
- Re: proxy memory objects,
Marcus Brinkmann <=
- Re: proxy memory objects, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2002/11/22
Re: proxy memory objects, Marcus Brinkmann, 2002/11/20