Closed jakaplan closed 2 years ago
@amomchilov thoughts? I know we've discussed this in the past. Having given it a bunch more though I think this is the best approach because of its consistency. It's true that in many cases it wouldn't be useful, but on balance I think that's okay.
Interesting thought. My thoughts on this are purely speculative, I haven't gotten to the stage where I'm testing my Mach service yet.
I'll give some feedback when I get to that point.
It now exactly mimics the implementation used by
XPCMachServer
. While in most cases this wouldn't be useful andstart()
should be used instead, by providing parity it means API users can test out running a Mach service (except for potentially the root access it has) with identical usage of SecureXPC.