Re: Vnode scope implementation

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

Hey,

Sorry for the delay, I was a bit busy.

I don't see any reason to hold with implementing the vnode scope just
because we can't control operations on a remote host. Therefore, I'll
give it a few more days (just in case) before moving forward.

Thanks,

-e.

Elad Efrat wrote:
> 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.