On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 7:00 AM, Kalle Olavi Niemitalo <k...@iki.fi> wrote:
> "Brent W. Baccala" <cos...@freesoft.org> writes:
>
> > Now I'm wondering - how would DEAD NAME notifications be handled?
> rpctrace
> > would want to transfer send rights with the DN notifications attached (so
> > it could wrap them both), but my experience, and my understanding of the
> > Mach documentation, is that moving a send right with a DN request
> triggers
> > a PORT DELETED notification, which is not what we would want.
>
> Before rpctrace moves the send right from the target task, it
> could call mach_port_request_notification to cancel the dead-name
> notification request. This call returns the send-once right to
> which the notification would have been sent. After rpctrace has
> moved the rights, it could restore the notification request,
> now with a wrapped send right and a wrapped send-once right.
>
Good idea! We can also use the same approach to handle no-sender
notifications - separate them from the receive rights before moving them
both. So I think we're OK destroying no-sender notifications when moving
receive rights.
agape
brent
