Re: Do we want a server on `/servers/machine' (or similar)?

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 17:53 +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Now, how about the following: we have a server sitting on
> `/servers/machine' (or somewhere else) that accepts rpcs like
> `io_perm_create' or `memory_map_create' and ``forwards'' (it need not
> really be forwarding) them to the kernel after having done some
> permission checking.  That server would hold access to the device-master
> port (and host-priv as well?), so it could also -- being a proxy -- allow
> access to (e.g.) `i386_io_perm_create' to users that can't get such
> access by themselves, but can prove that they should be allowed such
> access.  Proving this might be something like: ``When you're a member of
> the `console' group, you're allowed to get access to the i/o ports that
> deal with video output and to the video memory.''

I think this is roughly the right structure, sounds good.

I don't much like the name /servers/machine; so let's figure out
something better.  Names like that persist forever, so it's actually
more important than it might seem to get them right from the get-go.

Thomas

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part