From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,92640d662fc31a03 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-05-08 08:48:29 PST Path: newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.mesh.ad.jp!sjc-peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!iad-read.news.verio.net.POSTED!kilgallen From: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: howto make system calls (newbie question) Message-ID: References: <9d6c89$1nd$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9d87id$oll15@news.kvaerner.com> <9d8ute$8tt9@news.kvaerner.com> Organization: LJK Software Date: 8 May 2001 11:48:25 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.44.122.34 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verio.net X-Trace: iad-read.news.verio.net 989336907 216.44.122.34 (Tue, 08 May 2001 15:48:27 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 15:48:27 GMT Xref: newsfeed.google.com comp.lang.ada:7329 Date: 2001-05-08T11:48:25-05:00 List-Id: In article <9d8ute$8tt9@news.kvaerner.com>, "Tarjei T. Jensen" writes: > > Larry Kilgallen >>Console I/O - secure operating systems are likely to prevent a program >> run by an ordinary user from accessing the console, to prevent >> password grabbing attacks against the operator. > > Try again. console I/O means that there are no GUI. No, absent a specific explanation to the contrary, or specification of some particular operating system, console I/O should mean I/O to the console. On the machines I use, ordinary unprivileged users are _not_ allowed to write to the console (if they were, their output would get intermixed). >>Turbo Poascal style strings - please describe. Given Ada String, >>Bounded String and Unbounded Strings, I am hard-pressed to thing >>of capabilities that are missing. > > This has been discussed before in this newsgroup. If you remember that, but don't remember the answer, don't bother commenting on the question. >>Set File Protection - this certainly cannot be made uniform across >>operating systems. VMS has SOGW, Unix (at least some) have one fewer. >>A major way operating systems distinguish themselves is by differences >>in their ACLs. > > Of course it can. It is just a bit of work and som common sense. The posix > (or was it C) standard have some suggestions about how to do it. And do they cover protected subsystem ACEs, which I need for VMS ? I am sure that MVS, OS/400 and other operating systems have their own unique ACE types, to say nothing of different processing rules. As I said, it cannot be made universal across operating systems. >>Standard datatypes for system calls - And what good will a VMS-style >>descriptor do me on a Unix system ? > > Beats me. Why would you want that? The proposal was to implement standard datatypes for system calls. A descriptor is the most common datatype for VMS system calls. I am sure that other operating systems have their own datatypes that also do not have universal applicability. If your intention is to provide a binding only to Posix-standard interfaces, then say so, but I thought that already existed for Ada.