Messages in this thread |  | | From | (Matthias Urlichs) | Subject | Re: Proposal: a consistent mount interface | Date | 27 Nov 1996 23:27:19 +0100 |
| |
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
|  |