lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Apr]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [patch 2.1.97] more capabilities support
    Date
    In article <353C7192.44E6F6C1@luz.fe.uni-lj.si>,
    Andrej Presern <andrejp@luz.fe.uni-lj.si> wrote:
    >
    >It is intresting what you say here. I have tried to explain a concept
    >much securer than what is being presented here to some people, but have
    >failed in doing so because of being unable to provide the complete
    >implementation details due to my lack of Linux internals knowledge.
    >
    >If you are interested, I would very much like to explain it again to
    >you.

    This concept was using segments to give very low-level access rights on
    a per-object basis?

    I think I saw it, and never looked closer for a few reasons:
    - segments do not exist on anything but a i386+ (even i286- "segments"
    are just abominations, and have nothing to do with real segments) in
    any popular hardware.
    - even where they exist, they are slow.
    - protection that finegrained is theoretically nice, but a maintenance
    nightmare. In theory it is the best kind of protection, in practice
    you won't find anybody who will program a non-trivial program using
    them correctly and securely (I claim that even ACL's have this
    problem, and ACL's are much simpler)

    I personally do not believe in object orientation as a security model
    (nor as a general programming paradigm), but feel free to try to
    convince me.

    [ Or maybe I confuse you with somebody else and some other posting ]

    Linus

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:42    [W:0.020 / U:59.948 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site