mcherm at mcherm.com
Tue Dec 16 14:37:34 CET 2003
> i think the only really sensible way forward is to begin from a
> sound basis...
I agree completely.
> proposal: how about building ACLs into the python codebase?
Actually, I rather prefer the approach that has been mentioned before
of trying to use capabilities. See, for instance, the threads on
Capabilities found here:
Of course, that's not trivial to add either, since some way would
need to be provided for disabling Python's powerful introspection.
> the algorithm for evaluating an acl has been worked out already,
> and implemented originally by matthew chapman of the samba team,
> so code under the GPL already exists [in an NT-like environment which
> is over-the-top].
Unfortunately, code under the GPL is of no use at all for Python which
is released with a more flexible (but GPL compatible) liscense. And
I'm not quite sure what you mean by an "NT-like environment" being
> an empty acl also means that there is no performance penalty for having
> acl code in the python codebase.
Sorry, but I simply don't believe this. Really. Think about it a bit,
and if you still think you're right, I'll provide some reasons, but
I suspect you'll realize that it's simply not true.
I *DO* think though, that some amount of slow-down *IS* acceptable
(pie or no pie <wink>) if it provided powerful new capabilities like
*reliable* restricted execution environments.
-- Michael Chermside
More information about the Python-list