On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Andrew Deason <adea...@sinenomine.net> wrote: > On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:46:04 -0500 > Derrick Brashear <sha...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> the question (to me) boils down to "how much do we care about that >> environment" and i'd argue until we no longer provide an LWP >> fileserver we de facto do. we should explore that question, but it's >> out of scope for 1.6 regardless. > > Okay, but does anyone really run the LWP fileserver anywhere?
I could see it being useful in an embedded case, but I am unaware of anyone doing so now. >> >> Comments? >> > >> > +1 on all other points. In addition, remove --enable-unix-sockets, >> > which is already (confusingly) the default, and remove the >> > associated #ifdefs. Is there any reason to not use unix sockets for >> > SYNC? >> >> no unix sockets on Windows and possibly some platforms depending on >> kernel configuration. > > It also strikes me as really insecure, since it allows any local process > to make SYNC calls. Perhaps a warning when disabled? at configure time, or in the log at runtime? (i'd rather the former) _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
