[cap-talk] Persistence as a cap value (was: Re: ...PLASH discussion)

[Raoul Duke]

hi,

That doesn't totally make sense to me yet - If only considering local
capabilites and persistence, and if the way a capability disappears is
via entire system reboot, then the users of the capability would also
be gone. So having it disappear isn't really anything bad or special
since *everything* is gone and has to be restarted.

But you'd still want to issue it since if the universe doesn't restart
you want to use it.

?

>  Here's a "proof" (using the above thinking) that all capabilities
>  should be persistent:
>  __________
>  If having a capability disappear before it's first intended use wouldn't
>  cause a problem, then don't create/issue the capability.
>
>  If having a capability disappear before it's first intended use
>  would cause a problem, then it must be issued as persistent.  (e.g.
>  and then revoked when it's absence would no longer cause a problem).
>
>  Therefore in any case capabilities should be issued as persistent.