Messages in this thread | | | From | (Linus Torvalds) | Subject | Re: [patch 2.1.97] more capabilities support | Date | 21 Apr 1998 17:35:40 GMT |
| |
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
| |