At Sun, 7 Jan 2007 00:15:39 +0100, Pierre THIERRY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Scribit Marcus Brinkmann dies 06/01/2007 hora 23:48: > > > It's not really altered, because the originating peer keeps the > > > /abusus/, which gives him the ability to get back to the exact state > > > of control it was before. > > That doesn't make the loss of control any less real for the duration > > it happened, with all its consequences for the actors involved (which > > may very well be irreversible and thus permanent). > > What can be permanent with opaque memory that wouldn't with memory > shared transparently?
In my opinion, that's the wrong question to ask. The right question to ask is if there is a significant difference in the harm that can result from such an arrangement if I am out of control compared to when I retain control. I believe that to be the case. > The only permanent change in the process is that the memory region could > be altered, but that's already the case whatever the way memory is > shared. Nono, I agree that within the system there is no permanent, or more specifically irreversible change in your arrangement. The change happens outside the system, involving the actors, that means real human like you and me. This assumes that revocation is feasible, which may not always be the case, depending on what the relationship of power is between the actors and the application. Another point to consider. Thanks, Marcus _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
