[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
>> Of course. But will it do what you want?
> I don't understand your concerns.
Well, I'm just not sure that simply recompiling with a higher
NGROUPS/NGROUPS_MAX will actually have the effect you want.
> My intention was to let the NFS client run the modified kernel with a
> raised group limit. Then, the process in question will be a member
> of more than 16 secondary groups which will enable it to access files
> readable for these groups, be it on NFS or not. Where is the NFS
> server involved? Enforcing access limits is the client's business,
> isn't it?
Not entirely, I think. I haven't looked at recent versions of NFS, so
perhaps this is out of date, but, back when I was mucking about with
the NFS wire protocol, an NFS client process's secondary group list
appeared on the wire, and there was a relatively small hard maximum on
it - 16 sounds about right.
Perhaps I'm misremembering, though I don't think so. Or perhaps this
has been fixed in recent versions of the protocol, or perhaps it
applies only to certain operations you don't care about or something.
But it's something I'd suggest you be prepared to see trouble from,
even if perhaps not _expect_ trouble from.
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse%rodents-montreal.org@localhost
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
Main Index |
Thread Index |