On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 17:49 +0200, Pierre THIERRY wrote: > Scribit Pierre THIERRY dies 22/04/2006 hora 17:35: > > I'm not familiar at all with the use of capabilities by a program, but > > couldn't S drop it's capability in a way that won't trigger the send > > that the "invoke on delete" bit asks for? > > I reply to myself (mea culpa, for I didn't read all the thread before > sending my mail): IIUC, that would enable a malicious S to let C be > waiting indefinitely for the answer, never getting it nor any > notification that no answer will ever be able to reach it (because the > reply capability is not owned by anyone or because the owner is > destroyed). Am I right?
It is not possible in principle to prevent this. Do the exercise: design an S that achieves this denial even if "send on overwrite" is present. shap _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
