Re: Vnode scope implementation

[Elad Efrat <elad%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 2:07 AM, YAMAMOTO 
Takashi<yamt%mwd.biglobe.ne.jp@localhost> wrote:

>> but IIUC it can prevent what the
>> remote file-system would allow
>
> sometimes it can, but in general it can't.
>
> 1. a client sends a request to a server.
> 2. the server decided to allow the operation, and actually process it,
>  and return the result to the client.
>
> ie. you don't have a chance to pass "fs_decision" to kauth.

Ugh, the above was an obvious typo on my part. I agree, we don't have
a chance to pass fs_decision to kauth(9) because the remote server
will already perform the operation.

>> Should we enforce that
>> limitation on all file-systems, or make remote file-systems an
>> exception? Veriexec sets a precedent of the latter, which I think
>> makes sense. Do you have something else in mind?
>
> i'm not sure if "remote file-systems or not" is a good classification
> method.

How else would you classify it? and you still don't answer the
question of whether you have a solution that will not be considered
"broken". ;)

Thanks,

-e.