[EROS-Arch] Re: [Cap-Talk] Re: On the other hand (process tool restriction)
Jonathan S. Shapiro
Tue, 7 Nov 2000 01:33:18 -0500
This is really an EROS architecture discussion, and probably belongs on
eros-arch. I'm replying to eros-arch momentarily.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Landau" <email@example.com>
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 4:48 PM
Subject: [Cap-Talk] Re: On the other hand (process tool restriction)
> Norman Hardy wrote:
> > >We had a parallel
> > >discussion about this in context of the process tool, and concluded at
> > >that time
> > >that the process tool itself did not require protection.
> > What we called the domain tool was somewhat restricted. Once I wrote a
> > program that intermediated keys just as a would a program that exported
> > capabilities over a network. The system crashed when it tried to
> > intermediate the domain tool, which I had not realised was accessible to
> > the program that I was testing. I recall realizing what had gone wrong
> > that it was a fixable bug in the 370 kernel. I think that the bug was
> > fixed and I don't remember what the problem was now. I recall that it
> > evident in the crash.
> > I do not know of any reason to restrict the domain tool once the kernel
> > fixed.
> I've argued at <http://www.macslab.com/charlies/NoDC.html> that the
> creator is unwise, which implies that the domain/process tool should be
> to the space bank.
> cap-talk mailing list