[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ShadowFS (status)
From: |
Thomas Bushnell, BSG |
Subject: |
Re: ShadowFS (status) |
Date: |
26 Aug 2001 17:10:28 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7 |
Moritz Schulte <moritz@chaosdorf.de> writes:
> tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
>
> > Right, but he should get that port by doing a retry, not by having
> > shadowfs look it up in the real directory.
>
> Ah, so shadowfs should provide a retry _name_ if the file is found, it
> should not do the lookups itself and provide a retry _port_?
Exactly. Well, it provides both, of course. A retry port for the
real directory the file is in, and a retry name for the file itself.
> > Importantly, that would get the permissions wrong.
>
> No, not if shadowfs made the needed checks.
Um, what makes you think shadowfs even has the ability to open the
file? It might be running with weaker permissions.
- Re: ShadowFS (status), (continued)
- Re: ShadowFS (status), Neal H Walfield, 2001/08/03
- Re: ShadowFS (status), Marcus Brinkmann, 2001/08/03
- Re: ShadowFS (status), Neal H Walfield, 2001/08/03
- Re: ShadowFS (status), Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2001/08/26
- Re: ShadowFS (status), Marcus Brinkmann, 2001/08/26
- Re: ShadowFS (status), Moritz Schulte, 2001/08/26
- Re: ShadowFS (status), Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2001/08/26
- Re: ShadowFS (status), Moritz Schulte, 2001/08/26
- Re: ShadowFS (status),
Thomas Bushnell, BSG <=
- Re: ShadowFS (status), Marcus Brinkmann, 2001/08/26
- Re: ShadowFS (status), Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2001/08/26
- Re: ShadowFS (status), Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2001/08/26
- Re: ShadowFS (status), Moritz Schulte, 2001/08/26
- Re: ShadowFS (status), Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2001/08/26
- Re: ShadowFS (status), Niels Möller, 2001/08/27
- Re: ShadowFS (status), Marcus Brinkmann, 2001/08/27
- Re: ShadowFS (status), Steven Barker, 2001/08/27
- Re: ShadowFS (status), Marcus Brinkmann, 2001/08/27
- Re: ShadowFS (status), Moritz Schulte, 2001/08/03