Re: Securing Parrot ASM

2003-01-29 Thread Matthew Byng-Maddick
said "as soon as you go to native code, you lose", that was precisely what I was referring to. You just write the syscall in an asm{} block, and you can forget any library getting in the way. MBM -- Matthew Byng-Maddick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://colondot.net/

Re: Securing Parrot ASM

2003-01-28 Thread Matthew Byng-Maddick
ilities" for this. The term "capability" is quite specific in this area, and refers to something like a reference to an object method, but with access. (i.e. you can't get use the reference without the capability). See also: http://www.eros-os.org/essays/00Essays.html MBM -- Matt

Re: Securing Parrot ASM

2003-01-28 Thread Matthew Byng-Maddick
ive code, all bets are off, and you're reliant on what the kernel allows you to do. Parrot can no longer control it. It seems to me that the linking with native code is going to end up being one that most people switch on, because it will be necessary and/or useful in getting anything d

Re: Securing Parrot ASM

2003-01-28 Thread Matthew Byng-Maddick
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:04:43AM -0500, Christopher Armstrong wrote: > On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 02:11:39PM +0000, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote: > > What happens when you link in some module that's written natively? > > Basically, my conclusion was that this was, unfortunately,

Re: Securing Parrot ASM

2003-01-28 Thread Matthew Byng-Maddick
o come up > with some code I suspect you'll end up hitting the same problems as I did, but if you want to do it in the situations where there is no linking allowed, then it's probably sane. MBM -- Matthew Byng-Maddick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://colondot.net/

Re: Hello? Win32 on fire?

2001-12-12 Thread Matthew Byng-Maddick
bs] [-m directory] [-V variable] | [variable=value] [target ...] | [mbm@colon]:~$ uname -a | FreeBSD colon.colondot.net 4.4-STABLE FreeBSD 4.4-STABLE #0: Tue Nov 20 17:30:53 GMT |2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/COLONDOT i386 MBM -- Matthew Byng-Maddick <

Re: RFC 353 (v1) A Sandboxing mechanism for Perl 6

2000-10-01 Thread Matthew Byng-Maddick
On 30 Sep 2000, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote: >The syntax should be something like the current C >directives, possibly something like: > use sandbox 'fs' (. => ALLOW_SUBDIRS | ALLOW_READ | > ALLOW_READ | ALLOW_CLOBBER); That should read | use sandbox 'fs' (. => ALLOW_S

Re: RFC 353 (v1) A Sandboxing mechanism for Perl 6

2000-10-01 Thread Matthew Byng-Maddick
In RFC353, I totally missed some of the problems with implementation. In fact, what may actually be needed (with shared library code, in particular) is that using the sandbox system causes a fork, and then the child is ptrace()d by the parent perl process. This of course traps every possible syste