lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Apr]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 2.1.97] more capabilities support
Andrew Morgan wrote:
>
> Andrej Presern writes:
> > > I'm happy to say that capabilities as a concept have emerged from this
> > > research. It is my understanding that they are preferable to many of
> > > the other alternatives because they can be implemented in such a way
> > > that does not slow down the kernel.
> >
> > You don't know how right you are:) Only that I'm not talking about
> > capability lists such as POSIX:)
>
> I think you will find that POSIX labels your flavor of capability as
> "Mandatory Access Control" it is also a part of the POSIX draft...

Then you failed to understand the concept because the implementation
that uses capability lists is flawed. I haven't actually read the draft,
but as much as I could understand about it from other people's talk,
it's a capability list design and your implementation seems to confirm
that.

Andrej

--
Andrej Presern, andrejp@luz.fe.uni-lj.si


-
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    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site