Re: [9fans] security questions

[Eris Discordia <eris.discordia@gmail.com>]

> The other thought that comes to mind is to consider something
> like class based queuing (from the networking world).  That
> is, allow choice of different allocation/scheduling/resource
> use policies and allow further subdivision.

As with jail, this is also present in FreeBSD, I believe. It's called
'login classes.' Although it's probably not as flexible as you'd want it to
be.

--On Thursday, April 16, 2009 7:07 PM -0700 Bakul Shah
<bakul+plan9@bitblocks.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 21:25:06 EDT "Devon H. O'Dell"
> <devon.odell@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> That said, I don't disagree. Perhaps Plan 9's environment hasn't been
>> assumed to contain malicious users. Which brings up the question: Can
>> Plan 9 be safely run in a potentially malicious environment?  Based on
>> this argument, no, it cannot. Since I want to run Plan 9 in this sort
>> of environment (and thus move away from that assumption), I want to
>> address these problems, and I kind of feel like it's weird to be
>> essentially told, ``Don't do that.''
>
> Why not give each user a virtual plan9? Not like vmware/qemu
> but more like FreeBSD's jail(8), "done more elegantly"[TM]!
> To deal with potentially malicious users you can virtualize
> resources, backed by limited/configurable real resources.
>
> The other thought that comes to mind is to consider something
> like class based queuing (from the networking world).  That
> is, allow choice of different allocation/scheduling/resource
> use policies and allow further subdivision. Then you can give
> preferential treatment to known good guys.  Other users can
> still experiment to their heart's content within the
> resources allowed them.
>
> My point being think of a consistent high level model that
> you like and then worry about implementation details.
>