On Tue, 2008-05-27 at 20:53 +0300, Sasha Khapyorsky wrote: > On 04:33 Tue 27 May , Hal Rosenstock wrote: > > > > > > Maybe yes, but could you be more specific? Store SMKey in read-only > > > file on a client side? > > > > Treat smkey as su treats password rather than a command line parameter > > is another alternative. > > Ok, let's do it as '--smkey X' and then saquery will ask for a value, > just like su does. Good?
Works for me. > > > I'm not proposing to expose SM_Key, just added such option where this > > > key could be specified. > > > > How is that not exposing it ? > > Because (1) and (2) below. The original patch exposes the key when the option is invoked and that's just the time to hide it. -- Hal > Sasha > > > > > -- Hal > > > > > So: 1) this is *optional*, 2) there is no > > > suggestions about how the right value should be determined. > > > > > > Sasha > > _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
