[lkml]   [1998]   [Apr]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    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


    Andrej Presern,

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:42    [W:0.020 / U:17.980 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site