Re: [9fans] permissions

[erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>]

> >Right.  Aside from the persistent data file servers, like kfs,
> >kenfs, and fossil (as Erik mentioned), there's not much that
> >treats groups in the expected way.
>
> So if you'll continue to pardon my asking, who exactly tells a given
> file server what constitutes a user or a group?  In this particular
> instance, I'm running fossil (without Venti) as the filesystem.  So
> then, doesn't /adm/users come from fossil?  Wouldn't that mean that
> it's fossil's responsibility to enforce permissions?

the case of fossil and fossil+venti are the same.  venti just
changes how stuff is stored.

in the current system, it's always the file server's responsiblity
to maintain a list of users/groups as it sees fit.  there is no
central authority on users or groups.  however, it's generally a
very good idea to keep the user names in the authentication database
in sync with your main file server.  but there's no enforcement of
this other than the host owner of the fileserver must exist in the
auth database and the password must match.  the host owner of
the file server need not be in /adm/users at all!

- erik