Re: [9fans] the meaning of group

[erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>]

On Mon Jan 28 18:01:00 EST 2008, forsyth@terzarima.net wrote:
> > without any agreed-upon or secure arbiter of groups which tracks centralized
> > information, this does not seem like a good idea to me.
> 
> `centralised' information?
> 
> i assume you'd have to be hostowner to load it, so it's up to the host-owner process that loads it what it
> regards as `adequately reliable' data.  on a cpu server, it can be consistent with the user names associated with
> processes on that system.  that's not centralised though: it's a local convention.

i don't mean coordiated outside our site.  perhaps i didn't make that clear.

what you're saying sounds like, say, putting some configuration in /rc/bin/cpurc.
the problem is that this information needs to be updated across all cpu servers
more often than everything is rebooted.

perhaps a file on /srv/boot could be given to the fs which could be opened to check
group permission?  too cute?

- erik