Re: RFC for patch to add task_{set,get}_name RPC

[Richard Braun]

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 05:07:52PM +0200, Richard Braun wrote:
> On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 07:20:39PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Thomas Schwinge, le Thu 09 May 2013 18:42:18 +0200, a écrit :
> > > Then, to what extent are the proposed new RPCs just a specialized
> > > variant of the generic "port info" RPC that we have been musing about,
> > > <http://darnassus.sceen.net/~hurd-web/open_issues/translate_fd_or_port_to_file_name/>,
> > > in particular the log from IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-03-07? To me it
> > > would make sense to follow the latter route, so be able to store with
> > > every generic port some bits of debugging/logging information
> > 
> > Indeed.
> 
> A potential problem with that approach is that, unlike the common case,
> where the object associated to a port is targetted, the port itself is
> the object here. The server managing it is then always the kernel,
> which might interfere with message passing. A simple solution would be
> to create raw system calls, but I'm not sure that's something we want
> to do as it can be handy to emulate kernel calls. Another solution is
> to restrict these RPCs to kernel objects only.

Actually, ports are *always* kernel objects, so using a system call
would be appropriate IMHO.

-- 
Richard Braun