On (03/04/09 10:54), Girish Moodalbail wrote: > >> What does that mean for this project, though? If SCF isn't being >> considered and this proposal goes forward with its limitation that all
SCF isn't being discarded either. There are many models on the table between nwam, clearview, vrrp, Brussels, ... for dealing with an "smf networking" service- I think Clearview, for example, has a long-term desirable goal of treating each interface as an SMF service. The plan is that when the design of the smf service gels out to fit the needs of all the related projects, then we can move all the *.conf files into the appropriate smf repository. >> libipadm consumers (except for ipadm) need to be setuid root [1], will >> NWAM be able to use this? >> >> -Seb >> >> [1] I'm assuming that requiring consumers to be setuid ipadm is a >> non-starter, as we must have an underlying assumption that consumers of >> the API are doing more than calling libipadm functions. >> > > There is no need to have euid=0 for utilities which link into > 'libipadm.so'. They just need to have the privilege of 'file_dac_write' > with whatever 'euid'. --Sowmini
