ocaps meet normal code flow

This commit is contained in:
Christopher Lemmer Webber 2019-07-21 14:15:25 -04:00
parent 7377c2137f
commit 6393be3f13
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: 4BC025925FF8F4D3

View File

@ -766,8 +766,7 @@ the long term.
Incremental improvement is better than no improvement at all, and Incremental improvement is better than no improvement at all, and
there is a lot we can make better. there is a lot we can make better.
* How to build it * Understanding object capabilities (ocaps)
** Object capabilities (ocaps)
The foundation of our system will be object capabilities The foundation of our system will be object capabilities
(ocaps). (ocaps).
@ -777,7 +776,13 @@ Ocaps are authority-by-possession: holding onto them is what gives
you the power to invoke (use) them. you the power to invoke (use) them.
If you don't have a reference to an ocap, you can't invoke it. If you don't have a reference to an ocap, you can't invoke it.
*** Extending the car key metaphor Before we learn [[*How to build it][how to build]] a network of consent, we should
make sure we learn to think about how an ocap system works.
There are many ways to build ocaps, but before we show the
(very simple) way we'll be building ours, let's make sure we wrap
our heads around the paradigm a bit better.
** Extending the car key metaphor
We equated this to car keys before; the car doesn't care who you We equated this to car keys before; the car doesn't care who you
are, it only cares that you turn it on using the car key. are, it only cares that you turn it on using the car key.
@ -827,8 +832,74 @@ And yet ocap systems easily do give us this power.
We will take advantage of this power to construct the systems we want We will take advantage of this power to construct the systems we want
and need. and need.
*** Principle of Least Authority meets normal code flow ** Ocaps meet normal code flow
The nice thing about object capabilities is that they permit the
"Principle of Least Authority": we can hand only as much authority
as is needed to complete a task.
We saw this earlier, in contrast to solitaire.
If we thought about solitaire as being a procedure, in contemporary
operating systems, running it would look like so:
#+BEGIN_SRC javascript
// Runs with the full "ambient authority" of the user.
// We don't need to pass in permissions, because it can already
// do everything... but that includes crypto-lockering our
// hard drive, uploading our cryptographic keys and passwords,
// and deleting our data.
solitaire();
#+END_SRC
By contrast, the ocap route would look like so:
#+BEGIN_SRC javascript
// We explicitly pass in the ability to read input from the
// keyboard while the window has focus, to draw to the window,
// and to read/write from a specific file.
solitaire(getInput, writeToScreen, scoreFileAccess);
#+END_SRC
In fact, Jonathan Rees showed that
[[http://mumble.net/~jar/pubs/secureos/secureos.html][ocaps are just everyday programming]], and with a few adjustments
programming languages can be turned into ocap systems.[fn:whats-an-object]
(For example, instead of modules reaching out and grabbing whatever
they want to import, we can explicitly pass in access just as we pass
in arguments to a function.)
This may seem overwhelming.
How do ocaps get to all the right places then?
Thinking about ocaps as normal programming flow suddenly makes things
make more sense: how do values that come from all the way on /that/
side of our program get all the way to /this/ side of our program?
It turns out that most data passed around in programs doesn't come from
ambient user environments or global variables, it comes from normal
argument passing.
This should help us increase our confidence that we can use ocaps without
them being a burdensome part of our programming workflows; they are,
in fact, very similar to how we program every day.
[fn:whats-an-object] You may have been wondering, does the word
"object" in "object capabilities" mean that our programs have to be
particularly "object oriented"?
First of all, no, ocaps can be implemented in what contemporarily
may be perceived as very non-OO functional systems.
Second, [[http://www.mumble.net/~jar/articles/oo.html][object oriented]] is a very vague term.
Third, "object capabilities" used to be just called "capabilities",
but other computing systems started to implement things which they
called "capabilities" which have nothing to do with the original
definition of "capabilities" (eg, Linux's kernels are closer to ACLs
than they are ocaps), so the name "object capability" was chosen to
distinguish between the two.
** Ocaps meet human relationships
** The power of proxying
* How to build it
** Ocaps we can use in our protocols
*** Ocaps as capability URLs *** Ocaps as capability URLs
@ -838,15 +909,8 @@ That's all good and well, but real-world metaphors
*** Ocaps meet ActivityPub objects/actors *** Ocaps meet ActivityPub objects/actors
** Delegation, attenuation, revocation, composition, accountability
# and composition?
** True names, public profiles, private profiles ** True names, public profiles, private profiles
** Accountability and revocation in an ocap system
** Rights amplification and group-style permissions ** Rights amplification and group-style permissions
** MultiBox vs sharedInbox ** MultiBox vs sharedInbox