[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Passive versus active translators
From: |
Neal H Walfield |
Subject: |
Re: Passive versus active translators |
Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 09:44:37 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.3.18i |
> > I do not see how this makes sense. I see how it is logical, however, it
> > is misleading. Consider the following:
> >
> > # settrans -cap ~/foo /hurd/isofs cdimage
> >
> > The active translator will start, however, once it is stopped, the
> > filesystem will to be able to restart it. In this scenario, guessing
> > from the `-ap', the user likely wants to make sure that the translator
> > is setup and correctly and then wants to forget about it.
>
> You're confusing the behavior of settrans with mount. If you do:
My argument is that this will work when setting the active translator,
however, it will not work with a passive translator. Why? Only because
of the current working directory -- this has nothing to do with parsing
the arguments to the translator.
> > Not true; make settrans suid root.
>
> This would open up a whole flood of security risks.
If the filesystem already has root privleges then no; you have the same
problems setting the passive translator.
> but by no means should the default ones be
> the same as the underlying node.
This is how a passive translator works.
pgpDMvntKleNn.pgp
Description: PGP signature