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: 2001-05-09 09:14:56 PST Path: newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!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: 9 May 2001 12:14:51 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.44.122.34 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verio.net X-Trace: iad-read.news.verio.net 989424894 216.44.122.34 (Wed, 09 May 2001 16:14:54 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 16:14:54 GMT Xref: newsfeed.google.com comp.lang.ada:7382 Date: 2001-05-09T12:14:51-05:00 List-Id: In article , charleshixson@earthling.net (Charles Hixson) writes: > Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen) wrote in > : > >>In article >>, >>charleshixson@earthling.net (Charles Hixson) writes: >>> No. But perhaps a higher level description could be. It >>> might not have the total functionality of low-level system >>> calls, but one often doesn't need that. (I have only used >>> VMS twice, so forgive me if I don't know what an ACE is.) >> >>By ACE I mean "Access Control Entry", the fundamental >>building block of an Access Control List. I was under the >>impression the same term was used for Unix and Windows. It >>is the most common method of complying with the C2 rules of >>the Orange Book. While various operating systems have Access >>Control Lists for file protection, the parsing rules differ >>from one OS to another. Some early Unix implementations came >>without ACLs, but I think the need for C2 evaluation cured >>that for any serious implementations. >> > OK. Then perhaps the difference is that I never work with > highly secured systems. Perhaps that *is* specialized enough > (and different enough from system to system) that a high level > specification would be inappropriate. OTOH, if a similar > construct is used on VMS, *nix, and Windows, then perhaps a high > level description would be appropriate. If there were a uniform syntax, I worry that some might write Ada programs that were apparently portable (they compiled and executed on multiple platforms) but in fact had vastly different effective file protections depending on the operating system. I think one of the underlying principles of Ada is to avoid leading the programmer into mistaken practices.