Re: exec server behavior

2016-08-25 Thread Brent W. Baccala
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:20 AM, Richard Braun wrote: > On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 07:24:16PM -1000, Brent W. Baccala wrote: > > So, I'll modify libpager to handle multiple clients. Not trivial, but it > > seems necessary and correct. > > Don't start that immediately, wait for more discussions. I'

[bug #48890] mach-defpager isn't properly marked important

2016-08-25 Thread Samuel Thibault
Follow-up Comment #3, bug #48890 (project hurd): But I'm using mach-defpager from Debian on all those boxes... ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Message s

[bug #48890] mach-defpager isn't properly marked important

2016-08-25 Thread Brent Baccala
Follow-up Comment #2, bug #48890 (project hurd): I tried again with the mach-defpager from savannah's git tree and it worked correctly. Looks like a problem with the Debian package. ___ Reply to this item at:

Re: exec server behavior

2016-08-25 Thread Richard Braun
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:20:45PM +0200, Richard Braun wrote: > I started thinking about these only a couple of weeks ago, and so far > the only solutions my limited brain can come up with is to either use > the client context (by perhaps passing its root) but that could cause > security issues, o

Re: RFC: Lightweight synchronization mechanism for gnumach v3

2016-08-25 Thread Samuel Thibault
Hello, We have an issue with the kernel implementation :) When lock debugging is enabled (MACH_LDEBUG set to 1 in configfrag.ac), simple_lock uses _simple_lock to check using simple locks correctly. It happens that vm_map_lock_read, i.e. lock_read, calls check_simple_locks(): no simple lock is s

Re: exec server behavior

2016-08-25 Thread Richard Braun
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 07:24:16PM -1000, Brent W. Baccala wrote: > So, I'll modify libpager to handle multiple clients. Not trivial, but it > seems necessary and correct. Don't start that immediately, wait for more discussions. I'm not so sure it would make sense to support more than one client.

[bug #48890] mach-defpager isn't properly marked important

2016-08-25 Thread Samuel Thibault
Follow-up Comment #1, bug #48890 (project hurd): As reported by Svante Signell: “ On one of my KVM boxes: ps e | grep mach-defpager root11  - Ssfo  0:00.03 /hurd/mach-defpager cut -d ' ' -f 26,27 /proc/11/stat 0 0 ” Happens to me too on all the systems I have access to. __

Re: [bug #48890] mach-defpager isn't properly marked important

2016-08-25 Thread Svante Signell
On Thu, 2016-08-25 at 01:10 +, Brent Baccala wrote: > URL: >   > >  Summary: mach-defpager isn't properly marked > important >  > 'important' processes report their startcode and endcode fields as 0 > in their > /proc/PID/stat files. > >