Re: Translucent storage: design, pros, and cons

Tom Bachmann <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.os.hurd.l4
Message-ID <[email protected]>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jonathan S. Shapiro schrieb:
> On Fri, 2007-01-12 at 19:58 +0100, Tom Bachmann wrote:
> 
>> Well. I have the binary of a program (or, actually, it's source code,
>> but there exists a compiled version, for convenience). I load it into
>> memory and give it whatever capabilities I think are needed, enforcing
>> whatever properties I want. What can the constructor do that I can't?
> 
> Tom: 
> 
>   1) What about capabilities it holds that you do not?

I create it. All capabilities that it has have been given to it by me.
This is, as I understand it, a core property of the partial design
Marcus described in part two of his notes.

>   2) There is still utility in doing this by means of a commonly used
>      routine.

Yes, and as I have said before, I don't argue that it is to be removed
per se (actually, not at all, for exactly the reason you state), but
that it is not to be considered a "relevant" part of the design, if it's
utility drops to only being commonly used for convenience (which is what
it appears to me to be in the translucent storage / hierarchic trust
relationships design).
- --
- -ness-
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFp93nvD/ijq9JWhsRAof6AJoD62rlDqVLKWETwmVh1Jtzkgr9GgCfW8MU
rbpH4tD0M/JnFPDf12mqpN8=
=ZJrj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.