> without any agreed-upon or secure arbiter of groups which tracks centralized > information, this does not seem like a good idea to me.
`centralised' information? > in your case, however, a simple scheme might have the kernel (or just a > device) accept a ctl request that added > or removed a user name from a local group table, and then system start up > script(s) would load the table from some agreed source > (and presumably one that's adequately reliable). i think something like that > was mentioned, i assume you'd have to be hostowner to load it, so it's up to the host-owner process that loads it what it regards as `adequately reliable' data. on a cpu server, it can be consistent with the user names associated with processes on that system. that's not centralised though: it's a local convention.
