things like unionfs mask files; the world seems to have not ended yet. I'm not worried
Derrick On Sep 16, 2010, at 7:21 PM, Andrew Deason <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 11:56:02 -0400 > chas williams - CONTRACTOR <[email protected]> wrote: > >> on old clients, the file would show up with the prefix visible so you >> wouldnt blindly just write into that file via some program/script. >> yes, a user could see it but they hopefully wonder about it before >> deciding to randomly file some empty file with a strange prefix they >> found (until you update the fileservers). > > Maybe make the file a symlink to something (invalid) to actively prevent > this? Could make it a mountpoint to an invalid volume name, maybe. > > I'm not sure how doing this solves derrick's point "2", anyway. If you > make the special file with some prefix, the name the application gives > still masks any "real" file in AFS that has the same name. That is, > someone creates a socket 'foo', I think you were proposing we create a > file on the server called .__afs_socket_foo ? We still mask 'foo', > though. > > If you just create a symlink with the actual name and make it point to > something non-dereferencable, though, maybe... > > I don't know; I don't like masking data, but maybe it wouldn't really be > such a problem. > > -- > Andrew Deason > [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > OpenAFS-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
