Re: [9fans] none attaches a fs

Re: [9fans] none attaches a fs

[Russ Cox]

> This is my understanding that the user `none'
> can always mount a fs(4) without any authentication.
> Is this correct?  And if so, can I toggle this
> feature on and off?

At the moment, that's correct, and there's no toggle.
You could add one easily enough.

> sources.cs.bell-labs.com seems not allow `none' to
> attach its root.

Right, we need to make sure people have clicked through
the Questions before they access the server, to appease
the lawyers.  Sources.cs.bell-labs.com is a kfs rather
than a real fs.  See the section about `noneattach'
in kfscmd(8).  None can attach, but someone else has to
attach first.

Russ

Re: [9fans] none attaches a fs

[YAMANASHI Takeshi]

> I think that the issue is more where you put the fs console
> than it is if you allow access to it on the internet.

I agree that it is an issue that where the fs console is.
But that my fs allows everyone in the world to attach it
as none is another to me.

> I just keep the console in my room.

My console too. :)
--

Re: [9fans] none attaches a fs

[Fco.J.Ballesteros]

I think that the issue is more where you put the fs console
than it is if you allow access to it on the internet.

I just keep the console in my room.

Re: [9fans] none attaches a fs

[YAMANASHI Takeshi]

> There's no particular reason, except that
> kfs has been used in a few untrusted environments

Thank you for the explanation.

I modified the default behaviour of the server to be
that of kfs's because I am planning to connect my
fs to the Internet.
--
YAMANASHI Takeshi

Re: [9fans] none attaches a fs

[Russ Cox]

> Is there a reason that the behaviour of fs(4) is different
> from that of kfs?  kfs's treating of none looks more
> reasonable to me.

Fs and kfs diverged long ago.  The kfs network policy is
more tuned to being in an untrusted environment, whereas
fs just isn't.  There's no particular reason, except that
kfs has been used in a few untrusted environments, so it
picked up these things.  Some day we'll have only one file
server.

Russ

Re: [9fans] none attaches a fs

[YAMANASHI Takeshi]

> > This is my understanding that the user `none'
> > can always mount a fs(4) without any authentication.
 :
> At the moment, that's correct, and there's no toggle.

Is there a reason that the behaviour of fs(4) is different
from that of kfs?  kfs's treating of none looks more
reasonable to me.
--
YAMANASHI Takeshi

[9fans] none attaches a fs

[YAMANASHI Takeshi]

This is my understanding that the user `none'
can always mount a fs(4) without any authentication.
Is this correct?  And if so, can I toggle this
feature on and off?

sources.cs.bell-labs.com seems not allow `none' to
attach its root.

Thank you.
--
YAMANASHI Takeshi