4 ms·
First we need capability-based OSes, like we should have had decades ago if worse-is-better hadn't stuck us with Unix. I don't need to care whether or not a pro
by kibwen 2mo ago
First we need capability-based OSes, like we should have had decades ago if worse-is-better hadn't stuck us with Unix. I don't need to care whether or not a program was written in a capability-aware language if the OS fundamentally takes care of that for me.
- ptx 2mo agoFreeBSD does this with Capsicum: https://wiki.freebsd.org/Capsicum https://wiki.freebsd.org/Capsicum
- grommz 2mo agoHarmonyOS is a capability based OS. I don't know why anyone in China is still using Rust. The biggest social engineering hack was for the Rust team to convince developers that it is a safe language.
- pjmlp 2mo agoActually HarmonyOS NEXT is getting its language as well, Cangjie. https://cangjie-lang.cn/en https://cangjie-lang.cn/en https://cangjie-lang.cn/en/docs?url=%2F1.0.0%2Fuser_manual%2Fsource_en%2Ffirst_understanding%2Fbasic.html https://cangjie-lang.cn/en/docs?url=%2F1.0.0%2Fuser_manual%2...
- burnt-resistor 2mo ago1. seL4 exists. I haven't seen much more formal and rigorous than it. Efforts have ported the Linux kernel and RTOS-things to it. 2. Add syscall(s) to POSIX, which encourages *nix adoption, with an API like the following: - Drop capabilities for thread/process except allow list. - Test if current thread/process has all listed capabilities. - List should be able to represent capabilities and their attributes, much like a single unveil() OpenBSD call, maybe as an array of/pointer to struct. - (Program crashes if syscall capability is missing.)