On Fri, 2007-07-06 at 15:44 +1000, Daniel Carosone wrote:
> As I suggested earlier, *if* we were to go down this path, we already
> have proplib for marshalling mutatis mutandis.  There's more structure
> here, remember: options at several protocol levels, for starters.
> 
Sounds reasonable to me, not that my opinion can be treated as
important, I lack the background to be in any way authoritative.

It does strike me, however, that an opaque binary blob could be
checksummed or even encrypted so the kernel could trust it not to have
been altered.  This way, the objection that a malicious process could
cause trouble can be disposed of.

Secondly, I think that "cloning" makes the most sense.  Of course, the
interpretation of "clone" may be a little off the ordinary, but it does
not seem very remote from the use we'd make of it here.

Just my contribution, in case no one else raises these issues.

++L