Re: A sketch of the security model

2005-04-15 Thread Shevek
On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 09:11 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote: > At 10:03 PM -0400 4/13/05, Michael Walter wrote: > > > Each running thread has two sets of privileges -- the active > >> privileges and the enableable privileges. Active privs are what's > >> actually in force at the moment, and can be dr

Re: A sketch of the security model

2005-04-15 Thread Shevek
On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 22:03 -0400, Michael Walter wrote: > Dan, > > On 4/13/05, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > All security is done on a per-interpreter basis. (really on a > > per-thread basis, but since we're one-thread per interpreter it's > > essentially the same thing) > Just to

Re: A sketch of the security model

2005-04-15 Thread Shevek
On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 09:51 -0700, Dave Whipp wrote: > Dan Sugalski wrote: > > > All security is done on a per-interpreter basis. (really on a per-thread > > basis, but since we're one-thread per interpreter it's essentially the > > same thing) > ... > >* Number of open files > >* IO ope

Re: A sketch of the security model

2005-04-15 Thread Shevek
On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 17:51 -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote: > On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 17:01, Dan Sugalski wrote: > > So here's what I was thinking of for Parrot's security and quota > > model. (Note that none of this is actually *implemented* yet...) > [...] > > It's actually pretty straightforward, the

Re: A sketch of the security model

2005-04-15 Thread Shevek
Someone's pointed this thread out to me, so I'm going to shove an oar in following a few posts. I've done a fair bit of security work, so feel free to ask me to explain, justify or provide references for anything. On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 17:01 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote: > All security is done on a p

Re: Scope exit and timely destruction

2005-01-14 Thread Shevek
In which Tigger maintains that code relying on timely destruction in perl5 is buggy [and relatively rare], and agrees wholeheartedly with Rabbit on almost everything else. On Fri, 2005-01-14 at 17:52 -0700, Luke Palmer wrote: > Shevek writes: > > The example you described destroyed a ref

Re: Scope exit and timely destruction

2005-01-14 Thread Shevek
On Fri, 2005-01-14 at 16:56 -0700, Luke Palmer wrote: > > I thought C++ only guaranteed destruction (on return or exception) for > > objects which were directly on the stack. > > That's true, you have to explicitly delete most memory. I was actually > referring to the template refcounting class

Background materials

2005-01-14 Thread Shevek
ility and applicability. S. -- Shevek My other machine is your Linux box