> OK, so in a pure capability language how would you implement this: program A depends on dynamically loaded/installed plugin B written by some third party, tha

> OK, so in a pure capability language how would you implement this: program A depends on dynamically loaded/installed plugin B written by some third party, that in turn depends on library C. One day library C gets a native implementation of some algorithm to speed it up. To load that native library requires a capability, as native code can break the sandbox. Now, I'm a little outside my area of expertise due to not having worked with capability systems very much yet. (There aren't that many of them and they're still often obscure, so even just trying to gain experience with them is difficult at this point.) But that said... in an ideal capability system, isn't the idea that native code could just break the sandbox also wrong? I would imagine that in such a system, depending on another module that's running native code would be just fine, and the capability system's constraints would still apply. Maybe that could be supported by the OS itself on a capability OS; maybe the closest thing we'll get to native code for that on our existing POSIX systems is something like WASI[0]. > You often wouldn't need to. What permissions a module has is dependent on its implementation. It's legitimate for a library to be upgraded such that it needs newer permissions but that fact is encapsulated and abstracted away - just like if it needed a newer Java or a newer transitive dependency. If our goal is to know that the dependencies we're using don't have more authority than they need, isn't it a problem if a module's permissions may increase without explicit input from the module's user (transitive or otherwise)? [0] https://hacks.mozilla.org/2019/03/standardizing-wasi-a-webassembly-system-interface/ https://hacks.mozilla.org/2019/03/standardizing-wasi-a-webas...