[HACKERS] semaphore usage "port based"?

[Robert Watson]

On Tue, 9 May 2006, Max Khon wrote:

>> Yes, there seems to be an awful lot of noise being made about the fact that 
>> the system does, in fact, work exactly as documented, and that the 
>> configuration being complained about is one that is specifically documented 
>> as being unsupported and undesirable.
>>
>> As commented elsewhere in this thread, currently, there is no 
>> virtualization support for System V IPC in the FreeBSD Jail implementation. 
>> That may change if/when someone implements it.  Until it's implemented, it 
>> isn't going to be there, and the system won't behave as though it's there 
>> no matter how much jumping up and down is done.
>
> sysvipc has been implemented once, but it has been decided that it adds 
> unnecessary bloat. That's sad.

I'm not sure I follow the reasoning behind this statement.  Could you direct 
me to the implementation, and at the specific claim that it adds unnecessary 
bloat?  As far as I know, no implementation of jail support for system v ipc 
has ever been rejected on the basis that it adds bloat -- all discussion about 
it has centered on the fact that it is, in fact, a very difficult technical 
problem to solve, which requires careful consideration of the approach and 
tradeoffs, and that that careful consideration has not yet bene done.

Robert N M Watson