Comments on: LISP conditions and role-based security models http://blog.amber.org/2005/08/06/lisp-conditions-and-role-based-security-models/ Thoughts of a minor lunatic Wed, 07 Jan 2009 08:23:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Patrick Logan http://blog.amber.org/2005/08/06/lisp-conditions-and-role-based-security-models/comment-page-1/#comment-2569 Patrick Logan Thu, 25 Aug 2005 18:13:37 +0000 http://blog.amber.org/?p=1747#comment-2569 It gets a lot better than that. See... http://mumble.net/~jar/pubs/secureos/ It gets a lot better than that. See…

http://mumble.net/~jar/pubs/secureos/

]]> By: petrilli http://blog.amber.org/2005/08/06/lisp-conditions-and-role-based-security-models/comment-page-1/#comment-2458 petrilli Sun, 07 Aug 2005 13:11:37 +0000 http://blog.amber.org/?p=1747#comment-2458 Actually this would work totally differently. Basically, when you get to a specific point where you need to make a decision, you raise a signal and "something" above you in the call stack can make the decision of whether to proceed or abort -- without unwinding the call stack. You could certainly do it trivially in Lisp with @:before@ functions. Actually this would work totally differently. Basically, when you get to a specific point where you need to make a decision, you raise a signal and “something” above you in the call stack can make the decision of whether to proceed or abort—without unwinding the call stack.

You could certainly do it trivially in Lisp with :before functions.

]]> By: Ian Bicking http://blog.amber.org/2005/08/06/lisp-conditions-and-role-based-security-models/comment-page-1/#comment-2456 Ian Bicking Sun, 07 Aug 2005 05:49:28 +0000 http://blog.amber.org/?p=1747#comment-2456 Just, you know, if you wanted to make it more relevent, I think PEAK's generic functions might provide the same thing. That is, you can monkey-patch any function to be generic, then specialize it with functions that provide security constraints (and call next_method). Anyway, I think that's kind of what you are talking about here. Just, you know, if you wanted to make it more relevent, I think PEAK’s generic functions might provide the same thing. That is, you can monkey-patch any function to be generic, then specialize it with functions that provide security constraints (and call next_method). Anyway, I think that’s kind of what you are talking about here.

]]>