Alessandro Selli:
...
> And
> what I don't like of Karl Aspo's idea is that it takes any instrument of
> policy checking and enforcing out of the monitor, which ends up not
> being able to monitor anything, it becomes just a shell: fire and forget.

I honestly do not understand what I have written which gives you that idé.

> I was also been ironic on Aspo, as many times he can only counter
> another person's ideas asking "What if <something> cannot be trusted?",
> as if this constitutes a valid argument against being able to set
> policies for the monitor to enforce on the daemons it runs.

If I can get a value from the kernel instead of from the process,
I'd take the kernel value.

Why do a process have to query the kernel to get a value and then
sending it to a monitor over a communication link; why don't the
monitor query the kernel itself, saving one step.

> In this
> case, asking "why should a program/daemon care if it has a monitor or
> not ?" is moot, because that the daemon is aware or not that it was
> launched by a monitor and if so by what monitor, does not change
> anything about the monitor's functions and duties. The daemon doesn't
> care if it's run by a monitor? The monitor is still there, and it does
> care about the program.

It would help my understanding if you simply answered my question.

> A driver does not care if the traffic light is
> red or green? The street police does.

This is not as a suitable metaphor as you think it is.

Regards,
/Karl Hammar

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aspö Data
Lilla Aspö 148
S-742 94 Östhammar
Sweden
+46 173 140 57