Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, this would work out the way you described it. How about Mach keeping
> track of the task hierarchy? I am not sure how exactly this would need to
> be implemented. Mach could keep a pointer to the parent task in the task
> structure. Someone having the host control port (?) could extract a send
> right to this parent task port. Proc can match this (? does proc keep a
> send right to every task? Have to check.).
My idea is that a suitably privileged task could, given a port for
task T, get a port for its parent. If the parent is dead, it gets
null.
> However, I am not sure what happens if the parent task dies.
> If proc keeps a send right, it will become a dead name. Then we just have
> to make sure that we will return the same dead name on request.
There is no such thing as "the same dead name".
_______________________________________________
Bug-hurd mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
