From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: From: erik quanstrom Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:35:53 -0500 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] the meaning of group In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: 3c5db76e-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 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