Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 15:05:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Ben Black <black@zen.cypher.net> To: Don Yuniskis <dgy@rtd.com> Cc: Drew Derbyshire <ahd@kew.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: granting auth to processes Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.970618150450.1835A-100000@zen.cypher.net> In-Reply-To: <199706181316.GAA27714@seagull.rtd.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
actually, this is a feature of any true capabilities-based system. On Wed, 18 Jun 1997, Don Yuniskis wrote: > > It's not so much the shared library vs. server which concerns me, but > > levels of access granted. If every program didn't need full root access > > to change the effective user, it's not as big a problem. > > > > Consider it's the multiple levels of access needed to a set of files: > > > > User O can create or delete file > > Group A can read/write existing files > > Group B can read existing file > > Group C can write existing file > > Others have no access > > > > UFS does not allow this in a trivial fashion, because it has a finite > > number of permission bits. Likewise I somewhat object to a model which > > only has root/noroot as classes of API access, because it leads to the > > wrong amount of priv granted. > > Can you spell MULTICS? > > --don >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.3.91.970618150450.1835A-100000>