At Sat, 29 Apr 2006 22:23:16 -0400, "Jonathan S. Shapiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That too, but that's not the reason it's confinement. It's confinement > > because the child process cannot communicate with anyone, except with > > explicit > > permission of the parent (in the form of a capability transfer). > > It is also not confinement if the parent can read the child without the > consent of the child. Therefore it is not confinement at all.
The child *does* give the consent because the parent *instilled* into the child the consent in the first place. The mistake you are making is that you use a definition of "external" (see my other mail) which is too narrow. You are only considering the case where the parent (or instantiator) is different from the creator of the program. However, this is NOT the only possible configuration. There is also the case where the instantiator is identical to the creator, and in this case, the program is still confined. If this were not the case, your definition of confinement would make no sense. So, your definition of confinement _includes_ the case which I call "trivial confinement". Again, to make it perfectly clear, in EROS terminology: With these definitions: creator := the creator of the confined constructor object instantiator := the user of the confined constructor object Then: Trivial confinement <=> (creator == instantiator) non-trivial confinement <=> (creator != instantiator) I know that you are very, very, very interested in "non-trvial confinement". I know that I am proposing that "non-trivial confinement" should not be supported, and that this precludes use cases you are interested in. All this has been discussed at length, and will surely continued to be discussed. However, we must make sure that we use a common language, and that we agree on the laws of grammar and logic, before we proceed. If you still disagree, please provide a complete argument. A definition of confinement that contains undefined terms like "external" is not sufficient. My suspicion is that you do not actually disagree with the above facts, but that you consider trivial confinement to be totally irrelevant, while all your money is on non-trivial confinement. Tough luck, because it is the opposite for me. So, I have to insist that trivial confinement is indeed confined, because it is relevant to my argument. Thanks, Marcus _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
