On 10/30/06, M J Fleming <mjf@netbsd.org> wrote:
> 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.

I don't like this.  This "noexport" flag is something that the admin
has to set manually.  And if he has to do that, he can just as well
avoid adding that specific file system to exports.  I mean, the file
system is exported because the admin wants to, not because something
out of his control decides to do it.

However, it'd be different if this noexport option was set by the file
system driver itself (I think this is what others suggested and is
what I had in mind a long time ago during the rototill).  This way,
tmpfs (or any other file system that wanted to for whatever reason)
could say "hey, I don't want to be exported", and then you could not
export it in any way.

-- 
Julio M. Merino Vidal <jmmv84@gmail.com>
The Julipedia - http://julipedia.blogspot.com/