"Yoshinori K. Okuji" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Can the scheme above be improved (without adding security features > > like port-rigts to the kernel)? > > If most RPCs are normal messages from a task having a send right to > one having a receive right, it might improve the performance to map > the arrays to every task in read-only mode, so that it can check if an > IPC is valid by itself.
Interesting idea! You can do this, and still have the port-rights server send no-senders notifications when send-rights are removed from the table. > This isn't good for "send once" rights, but I don't think "send > once" rights are used so often. Then the receiving task would have to tell the port-rights server that the send-once right is consumed and should be deleted. I'm not sure if a receive right in general implies the right to selectively revoke send rights. And one also gets a few race conditions to deal with. It might not be worth the trouble. > However, I'm not sure if L4-Hurd needs a central port right server. Is > it really necessary? My reasoning, in Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 16 Nov 2001 15:54:28 +0100) was that an extra level of indirection is necessary for implementing a reliable no-senders notification. I'd be delighted to be proved wrong. Regards, /Niels _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
