Skip to content

docs(rfc): RFC-0003 accepted — verdict recorded #8

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
MatejGomboc merged 1 commit into from
Jul 30, 2026
Merged

docs(rfc): RFC-0003 accepted — verdict recorded #8

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
3 changes: 2 additions & 1 deletion docs/CHANGELOG.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -12,7 +12,8 @@ recorded is indistinguishable from law that was never agreed.

### Added

- `docs/rfcs/0003-capability-table.md` — **proposed**, the first Phase 1 design RFC and the first to
- `docs/rfcs/0003-capability-table.md` — **accepted** (2026-07-30; selective revocation's final
verdict expressly deferred to RFC-0003a), the first Phase 1 design RFC and the first to
cite the threat model's obligations by number, discharging O-1, O-2 and O-4 and part of O-3. Argues
for a flat per-process handle table (Zircon lineage) carrying seL4's invariants — handles as
indices, kernel-owned capabilities, monotone subset-only derivation, generation counters against
Expand Down
9 changes: 8 additions & 1 deletion docs/rfcs/0003-capability-table.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -4,12 +4,19 @@

| Field | Value |
|-------|-------|
| Status | **Proposed** — the paper the design is argued on, awaiting the maintainer's verdict |
| Status | **Accepted** — 2026-07-30, by the maintainer |
| Author | Drafted by Claude Code as sparring partner; verdict the maintainer's |
| Date | 2026-07-30 |
| Affects | Constitution §3 (kernel doctrine), pillar 2; the syscall ABI; every later subsystem |
| Discharges | Threat-model obligations O-1 (unforgeability), O-2 (non-widenability), O-3 (revocability), O-4 (no ambient authority) |

> **Accepted.** The flat per-process handle table (§4, Option B) is the capability representation;
> derivation is subset-only; transfer is a move; the syscall ABI is capability-indexed from its first
> syscall (§9). Selective transitive revocation remains **open**, deferred to RFC-0003a with B3
> (badges + shallow derivation records) as the proposal on the table — accepting this RFC does not
> pre-empt that verdict. The open questions in §14 are the next design work, and anything the first
> implementation PR proves wrong comes back here as a dated amendment, per house practice.

## 1. The question

**How does a process hold, use, narrow, hand on, and lose the authority to touch a kernel object —
Expand Down