From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <9321241f7154cd4cd7fab6579c8916b0@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] factotum/802.1x catch 22?
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 06:38:11 +0200
From: lucio@proxima.alt.za
In-Reply-To: <200703212303.l2LN3Vl25960@zamenhof.cs.utwente.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 2c4c3dc4-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> I've extended my factotum with an 'authaddr' ctl verb.
> (don't know wat can of worms it opens...)

Sure, anything in security has its risks.  It may be safer if this
could occur exactly once and that if "-a authaddr" was previously
given, the command was rejected.  But that may be overkill.  Still,
I'd do it.  And -A would override for those who like living
dangerously.

> reseiving it it will also trigger an attempt to access
> secstore if it wanted to do that on startup but couldn't
> (like because there was no network configured yet.)

That is also a useful function in itself and I see no risks in it.  If
you add it in as a separate function, make sure we can add the
location of the secstore.  Mind you, that might be necessary in the
"authaddr" command, too, possibly as an option.

I second such changes, can you submit them here if "patch" does not
like them?  :-) :-)

*** Off Topic ***

I had a brief chat with "patch" and it strikes me now that the delay
in accepting complex patches might be alleviated if such patches could
be reviewed by 9fans, that is to say, publicly, by request.  Say, for
example, that we are asked to comment on Axel's patch and we return a
verdict, as part of the "patch" process.  No need to publish the
request, those interested can look on sources and post the result
there.

Two factors would seem important: usefulness as well as correctness.
Maybe on a scale of 1 to 5.  I don't know if I'm skilled enough to
alter patch/* accordingly, but I could try.

++L