help-hurd
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Running several instances of an fs server...


From: Joshua Judson Rosen
Subject: Re: Running several instances of an fs server...
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 15:42:22 -0400
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i

On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 09:13:09PM +0200, Ludovic Court?s wrote:
> > > > Since filesystems can be `mounted' in users directories, serveral users
> > > > of the same machine are very likely to mount the same filesystem in
> > > > their own home dir, so that's an important issue.
> > 
> >  This isn't true because users currently cannot get the device master port
> > for the physical devicce.
> 
> Ok. So my question is: how should normal users access stored filesystems? For
> instance, on my machine (well, it has only one user), I have made all the
> partitions I use world readable/writable (666) in such a way that I can
> `mount' those partitions writable in my home dir.
> 
> So, in the `real world', should the devices be 644 or even 600, in which case
> there would be only one mount point chosen by the administrator?

"administrator" is the wrong term, yes? "owner of the filesystem"
seems more correct.

If you are the only user to be trusted with these filesystems, you
might consider changing ownership to yourself.

On the subject of multiple users sharing access to a stored filesystem:

If you've already got the filesystem `mounted', wouldn't it normally
make more sense to make a firmlink to the existing mount-point than to
re-mount the store?

Or even just use the existing mountpoint?

I suppose that the administrator might setup a node like
"/mnt/shared-fs-0" where the filesystem would be `mounted', and
everyone who wants to refer to it by another path (for easy of typing
or whatever) could just make firmlinks or symlinks to this node.

> In this case, we could only take advantage of the fact that the fs
> code is lying in user space with non-stored filesystems (eg. a user
> is allowed to mount an nfs/ftpfs/httpfs/shadowfs but is still not
> allowed to mount a disk filesystem).

This doesn't really seem like an accurate statement....

I think that `loopback' filesystems have already been mentioned--being
able to, for example, make a file-system image to dump to a floppy,
can be a very useful thing for mundane users.

Of course..., actually dumping the image to a floppy via something
like `dd of=/dev/floppy ...' is another matter....

-- 
"... I believe that learnability is a laudable goal, but frequently
misplaced. The purpose of a language is not to help you learn the
language, but to help you learn *other* things by using the language."
--Larry Wall



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]