Re: proxy memory objects

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Marcus Brinkmann <address@hidden> writes:

> On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 07:02:59PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Marcus Brinkmann <address@hidden> writes:
> > 
> > > However, I think I will change the function name of the hack to
> > > mach_create_memory_object_proxy, to illustrate the target of the RPC 
> > > better
> > > and leave the memory_object_* name space to the memory object (and 
> > > control)
> > > interface.
> > 
> > Yes, I think this is the right strategy.  So we need two additional
> > interfaces, one called mach_create_memory_object_proxy, and one called
> > memory_object_create_proxy.
> 
> Yes, but as I said, we don't need the latter one right away to fix the
> security hole.  It can be added at any later time just as well.

Hrm.  maybe so.