[cap-talk] Another "core" principle - virtualize capabilities

[Marcus Brinkmann]

Hi,

The main point of confusion I think is finally cleared up by this
statement:

> And, for the record ;-), I am not arguing that a single universal
> mechanism is good enough for all applications, but that a wrappable
> and mappable object-capability interface is sufficient for all
> applications.  There are a variety of interfaces available within
> that constraint.

I took your previous statements to mean exactly the first of the above
("single universal mechanism").  The reason is that I believe that
your clarified claim above is a null-statement: With sufficient
definitions of "objects" and "methods", all (?) systems provide
"wrappable and mappable object-capability interfaces".

Consider the Linux kernel to be a single object, for example, with
every system call being a method.  Then clearly we have a
object-capability interface, and it is wrappable and mappable by
either of several methods (whole-system emulation, virtualization,
user-mode kernels, ptrace, libc) depending on the level of mapping
desired.

You may consider this to be pedantic, but hey, I'm a mathematician
after all.

In light of this, which parts of the discussion are you still
interested in?

Thanks,
Marcus