On Sunday, January 28, 2007 01:10:11 AM +0200 Juha Jäykkä <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
So what it really comes down to is this: I claim that, if someone who
"owns" a directory (i.e. has "explicit" a privs) defines a subdirectory
and restricts someone else to non-a privs there, it is really a
s
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Christopher D. Clausen wrote:
We'll,
You will?
you already have "multiple fileserver flavors" right now. You
can compile enabling fast-restarts, or not and many otehr options. I
would imagine that a run-time flag is less confusing than a compile time
option. Or even t
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Todd M. Lewis wrote:
I see a need for both solutions. Would it be possible to change the
behaviour on a per-fileserver basis? That you could allow one scenario
on volumes on fileserver a and allow the other on fileserver b.
Perhaps a flag to the fileserver on start-up to
Todd M. Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I see a need for both solutions. Would it be possible to change the
>>> behaviour on a per-fileserver basis? That you could allow one
>>> scenario on volumes on fileserver a and allow the other on
>>> fileserver b. Perhaps a flag to the fileserver on s
I see a need for both solutions. Would it be possible to change the
behaviour on a per-fileserver basis? That you could allow one scenario
on volumes on fileserver a and allow the other on fileserver b.
Perhaps a flag to the fileserver on start-up to select which method the
cell admin would lik
Derrick J Brashear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Christopher D. Clausen wrote:
>> Perhaps a flag to the fileserver on start-up to select which method
>> the cell admin would like?
>
> the problem is the right way is per-volume, but per-fileserver is
> probably the best we can do
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Christopher D. Clausen wrote:
Bob Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, Juha [UTF-8] JC$ykkC$ wrote:
So what it really comes down to is this: I claim that, if someone
who "owns" a directory (i.e. has "explicit" a privs) defines a
subdirectory and restricts
Bob Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, Juha [UTF-8] JC$ykkC$ wrote:
>
>>> So what it really comes down to is this: I claim that, if someone
>>> who "owns" a directory (i.e. has "explicit" a privs) defines a
>>> subdirectory and restricts someone else to non-a privs there, it is
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, Juha [UTF-8] Jäykkä wrote:
>> So what it really comes down to is this: I claim that, if someone who
>> "owns" a directory (i.e. has "explicit" a privs) defines a subdirectory
>> and restricts someone else to non-a privs there, it is really a
>> security breach for that someo
> So what it really comes down to is this: I claim that, if someone who
> "owns" a directory (i.e. has "explicit" a privs) defines a subdirectory
> and restricts someone else to non-a privs there, it is really a
> security breach for that someone else to be able to get "a" privs
> anywhere below it
>On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, Frederic Gilbert wrote:
>
>> Derrick J Brashear wrote:
On the other hand, we found out that one can apply "fs sa" on a
directory, even if he is not in the ACL table, and even if he is not the
directory's owner, but if he is the owner of the mounting point of the
11 matches
Mail list logo
