Andrew Deason wrote:
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:42:53 -0500
Derrick Brashear <[email protected]> wrote:
You can't. If we allow you to specify the 'anonymous' user, you
could assign negative idwka rights to 'anonymous' on the
volume-level ACL to prevent system:anyuser write access. But there
is no way to prevent access for system:authuser.
Note: giving a negative ACL on, say, system:anyuser would prevent
_any_ user from getting rights; that's not what we'd want.
Since system:anyuser represents all users, it seems to me we could
introduce a way to indicate anonymous users. Perhaps with a new
system group, system:anonusers which represents users that are
not authenticed?
While this could be helpful, this don't solve the problem for the
various system:authuser groups or host groups.
Can you expand on that a bit? What is the problem with the host ip
groups? As far as I can see the host rights would still be honored
even if we had a negative rights for the anonymous user.
What are the issues with system:authuser groups that I'm not
seeing?
At that point we would specify a volume level negative right,
Negative rights:
system:anonusers idwka
Why do you need a group, as opposed to simply mapping 32766 to a name?
We already have a name, too: anonymous. Why can't we specify that in
normal ACLs now, anyway? Does it just have to do with how the ptserver
returns errors?
I suspect there are error handling implications, because 32766 cannot be a
pts id.
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
