Quoting David Michael (2014-12-12 23:01:57)
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 7:26 AM, Justus Winter
> <4win...@informatik.uni-hamburg.de> wrote:
> > @@ -1008,9 +1069,42 @@ S_mach_notify_new_task (mach_port_t notify,
> > childp = new_proc (task);
> > }
> >
> > - /* XXX do something interesting */
> > + if (MACH_PORT_VALID (parentp->p_task_namespace))
> > + {
> > + error_t err;
> > + /* Tasks in a task namespace are not expected to call
> > + proc_child, so we do it on their behalf. */
> > + mach_port_mod_refs (mach_task_self (), task, MACH_PORT_RIGHT_SEND,
> > +1);
> > + err = S_proc_child (parentp, task);
> > + if (! err)
> > + /* Relay the notification. This consumes TASK and PARENT. */
> > + return mach_notify_new_task (childp->p_task_namespace, task,
> > parent);
> > + }
> >
> > mach_port_deallocate (mach_task_self (), task);
> > mach_port_deallocate (mach_task_self (), parent);
>
> This mach_notify_new_task call in proc/mgt.c seems to be causing a
> linker error. I added task_notifyUser.o to MIGSTUBS to get around it.
> Is that correct?
Yes, but that issue should be transitional. It happens whenever we
add RPCs, as the client stubs are distributed in a .so by the libc and
have to be rebuilt.
Justus
