[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Hurd-L4 : Architecture Questions

From: ness
Subject: Re: Hurd-L4 : Architecture Questions
Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 18:42:01 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050329)

[I'm not a expert, so be careful]
What is the owner of a process? The chief of it's clan? It's manager?
Well, in hurd everything works on capabilities. A process doesn't have a
owner in the way you know it from linux or so. A thread will be able to
get a capability from an authentication server so we can implement posix
compilant auth. Or you create an other authentication mechanism, if you
like it. You see, doing this with owners would not be a good idea, since
it doesn't collaborate with the capability philosophy and you wouldn't
even know what auth-server to ask.
Well, I think you need some core servers. Noone says these can't create
multible threads and be executed multiple times. We need them, because
we need some servers that are trusted always. The only servers everyone
has to trust are these core servers (since these are started by the
kernel and can do or not do what they want).

NePat wrote:
>               Hello,
>   I've spend much time in reading documentation on L4-Hurd, i read some code 
> , 
> i also read some mails in the mailing list, and i have some questions to ask 
> (excuse my poor english :) ) :
> 1 - Trusted process ?
>       There's lots of things and thought about, but i don't really get the 
> thing. 
>       On what is based the amount of trust provide to a process by a server ? 
> Why 
>       it can't be enough to trust the owner (user) of a process ?
> 2 - SMP are'nt thinked ?
>       I don't find anything about SMP ans L4-Hurd. Altought the L4 pistachio 
> seems
>       to be designed in such a way. And , the heavily muti-threaded conception
>       of Hurd-L4 is directly interested in SMP. And more, the futur, by the 
> limit
>       on electronics size, is to the SMP. So ...
> It seems that the design changes his way to a more centralized system ( with 
> cap server and notification server, perhaps there's the same ), but in SMP 
> architecture centralisation is a bad thing ( i think ), the things has to be 
> as much as possible local, so are the reason to change the way so 
> unbreakable ? ( and i don't speak about overhead costs ).
> Thanks, 
> _______________________________________________
> L4-hurd mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]