> [email protected] said:
>
> >
> > The proposed approach from Seoul is to require implementation of
> > shared resource protection functionality in the privileged resource
> > manager that has to be used by non-privileged apps (e.g., the
> > high-water and low-water notifications would go to the resource
> > manager rather than the application); implementation of this
> > functionality can then be imposed as a responsibility on privileged
> > applications as part of the price of to bypassing/replacing this
> > portion of the privileged resource manager. This should respond
> > to the major concern about keeping this support out of any receive
> > fast path (e.g., in hardware).
> >
>
> The security draft should be compatible with what I have termed
> "hard" or per-endpoint limits.
That makes a lot of sense - implementers who want to enforce the
additional limits in a shared pool should be able to do so.
Thanks,
--David
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.