Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>