The kdbuswreck
The kdbuswreck
Posted Apr 30, 2015 14:29 UTC (Thu) by ksandstr (guest, #60862)In reply to: The kdbuswreck by metux-its
Parent article: The kdbuswreck
It likely didn't help that academia at the time was still mildly abuzz with capability-based this and capability-based that, and that the relevant research papers would read like exercises in ontological wank -- for example, calling a process' knowledge of a path name a "capability" as it makes the process capable of accessing that entry (or discovering that it cannot). While that way of looking at things does account for things like forking (which implicitly copies data such as pathnames), it has precious little to do with the split-root capability mechanism of Linux besides having a word in common and an application in the field of access control.
Historically, then, a "capability" can mean basically everything, which makes it a good word for marketing towards the uncritical and unwary much like "the cloud". [Imagine a snarky remark wrt implied corporate braindamage in systemd here.]
Posted Apr 30, 2015 18:25 UTC (Thu)
by ms_43 (subscriber, #99293)
[Link]
Linux also has *those* capabilities (in a very limited form), they are just called "file descriptors".
The closest you're going to get to a capability-based security model with a traditional UNIX-like kernel is Capsicum.
http://lwn.net/Articles/482858/
(Insert standard rant about kids these days thinking that "operating system" is a synonym for UNIX)
The kdbuswreck