On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 8:07 AM, John Gilmore <[email protected]>wrote:
> Since this sort of thing is expected of me, I will note that we find > ourselves between Scylla and Charybdis here. > > Chris Craddock's formulation was open to the exception that Peter > Relson took: there is fetch-protected storage the contents of which > its owner is entirely free to make available to others. > > Peter's exception is logically impeccable. It did, however, seem to > me to be a very special one; and I observed that it was. I still > prefer the ROT that the contents of protected storage should not be > made available to the unauthorized (in any but very special > circumstances, when they are known procedurally to be innocuous.). > > To repeat myself now, Peter is nonetheless correct in the abstract. > There is a long intellectual tradition which has it that the > production of just one black swan is an unanswerable refutation of the > proposition that all swans are white. I can't quibble with Peter's exception. I was evidently not sufficiently clear. I had assumed it was self-evident to everyone that a privileged program is free to do what ever it wants with the contents of its own storage - including both disclosing and/or modifying that data - regardless of fetch protection. I was merely pointing out to a prior poster that a privileged program is required to honor key controlled protection in general and meeting that requirement is more rigorous than just not mindlessly storing in areas provided by a caller (regardless of the caller's key). -- This email might be from the artist formerly known as CC (or not) You be the judge. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
