lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1996]   [Nov]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Proposal: a consistent mount interface
Date

In linux.dev.kernel, article <199611261151.GAA23127@mercy.mit.edu>,
Maciej Stachowiak <mstachow@mit.edu> writes:
>
[ 2. Have a different mount program for each remote file system ]

> However, the second solution does have some advantages. Here they are,
> along with my objections to them. First, it allows arbitrary
> interesting things to be done in user space at mount time. However,

There are cases where this won't work. For instance, let's say my superFS
mount call requires some public-key authorization, using my personal
authentication daemon on my secure machine (look at ssh).

I do NOT think it's be a good idea to pass what's essentially an open file
descriptor (ssh can do it that way) through a mount program and kerneld to
a mountd thing which doesn't have access to the user's environment and thus
may not be able to determine whether the user is authorized to access that
particular file system.

> using kerneld, this can be achieved anyway. Second, if each fs type

Since mount is the only program which does this, kerneld is unnecessary.


--
If practice makes perfect, and nobody's perfect, why practice?
--
Matthias Urlichs \ noris network GmbH / Xlink-POP Nürnberg
Schleiermacherstraße 12 \ Linux+Internet / EMail: urlichs@noris.de
90491 Nürnberg (Germany) \ Consulting+Programming+Networking+etc'ing
PGP: 1024/4F578875 1B 89 E2 1C 43 EA 80 44 15 D2 29 CF C6 C7 E0 DE
Click <A HREF="http://info.noris.de/~smurf/finger">here</A>. 42

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:38    [W:0.067 / U:2.352 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site