> It requests a Patch release binding and a Committed interface Taxonomy.
>
> Full diff marked man pages for policy.conf(4) and chkauthattr(3secdb)
> are in the case directory.
OK. It seems that no one vocal like workstation owner.
In some sense I'd like to hear from members who have not
spoken. Silence is usually acceptance, but I'm not sure
of what. "Console", "console" seems to be preferred to
"Workstation", "workstation", I'm happy with that change.
My personal leaning is to "Owner", "owner" as the legacy
term and what we call the "Subject identity" that controls
objects. The other terms proposed (less "user") all seem
less obvious, though I like "denizen" ;-). So I'll wait
til 30 Jan to hear from members before making a final
proposal at the PSARC meeting.
Riny asks:
> BTW, how about multiple users on multi-seat, which has been available
> on SPARC for a long time?
I'm not sure I understand the question. If it's in relationship
to SunRay/SRSS, none of those users are the "owner" of /dev/console,
so they will not be automatically granted the additional
Rights Profiles enabled by this case.
> And how about providing a library interface, something like
> is_console_user()? It could have a Committed level, though the
> implementation/definition may vary in different configurations?
> It would be also beneficial to other projects/cases, like this one,
> that expect to determine if a user is "Console User".
I'd be happy to provide an interface named to align with
the final specification of this case. However, I'd like
to know what other projects would benefit and how it would
be used. It seems to me the correct architectural interface
is chkauthattr() for authorizations or getexecuser() for
execution profiles. Both of these are covered by this case.
So, I'm inclined to currently say no to this request.
Gary..
