←back to thread

190 points Harvesterify | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
surajrmal ◴[] No.45669852[source]
A shared global namespace ultimately makes it very difficult to have a decent capability based security system. Namespaces limited to the set of actions you have and a hierarchy of capabilities whereby children can only be given access to capabilities their parents have is required for a sane view of how things work. Much like encapsulation makes it easier to reason about abstractions in a program, this nested hierarchy of capabilities makes it easier to reason about the privilege of various parts of the system. Instead we have soup where no one can quite reason about what has access to what.
replies(6): >>45670120 #>>45670198 #>>45670857 #>>45671117 #>>45671465 #>>45674367 #
candiddevmike ◴[] No.45671117[source]
I don't think you can bolt something like what you're describing onto an existing kernel (like linux did with capabilities). You'd have to design it this way from the ground up. I think I've read about some experimental OSs exploring that kind of capability by design, almost like a type 1 hypervisor but for processes.
replies(1): >>45673004 #
1. shwaj ◴[] No.45673004[source]
Fuchsia pervasively uses capabilities.