Subject: Re: MNT_NOSHARE for non-exportable fs [was: Removing tmpfs' experimental status
To: Elad Efrat <elad@NetBSD.org>
From: M J Fleming <mjf@NetBSD.org>
Date: 10/30/2006 17:09:17
On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 03:15:32PM +0200, Elad Efrat wrote:
> Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> > On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:57:52 +0200, Elad Efrat <elad@NetBSD.org> wrote:
> >> off-list
> heh, thought I got rid of that bad habit :)
> >> YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> >>> can you consider to revert the change?
> >> was there really a consensus against it?
> >> the last mail on this thread is mine:
> >> http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-kern/2006/10/25/0028.html
> >> and there's an open question in it (to smb@)...
> > Sorry, I thought I'd answered.
> > No, I don't have an answer I'm happy with; I regard it as a research
> > question.
> we can address that using fileassoc(9), or at least that'd be a start..
> > I stand by the main point in the note of mine you were
> > responding to: "no export" as a security flag is a bad idea.
> are we using it as a security flag?
jmmv, are you ok with the solution I've used to solve the export and tmpfs
problem? If not, I'll revert my changes. If yes, the discussion in this thread
should continue, anyway.