> > Note that Sane and libsane was previously ARC'ed via LSARC
> >
> > http://sac.eng.sun.com/arc/LSARC/2007/018/
Just what is the relationship between this case and the sited
LSARC case? Why is the LSARC case listed as a reference?
> 1) Device allocation:
>
> It is to meet the Solaris object reuse, access and audit
> requirements. Referencing "Controlling Access to Devices" in "System
> Administration Guide: Security Services"[1], I think sysadmin can easily
> put a scanner under the control of device allocation subsystem. If
> device allocation is desirable, the sysadmin or similar role can enable
> BSM by bsmconv(1M). Then the sysadmin can put the scanner's device
> special file in device_map and device_allocate(4), and provide a
> device-clean script. As Gary had pointed out in the LSARC case, a clean
> script is sufficient. In my opinion, the clean-script is up to the
> sysadmin. The ugen(7D) (sane backends access devices trough ugen
> interface) driver will not cache any data upon close, thus is not
> necessary to be cleaned. The clean-script may be just a script to print
> a message to remind user to take away his paper. If ARC think the
> project is responsible for clean-script, I will provide one.
>
> Device allocation can meet the requirements of object reuse, access
> and audit.
If the project is going to claim that object reuse, access control
and audit are met by device allocation, then the project needs
to integrate all the needed components to support this case within
the device allocation framework as stable components therein.
Mimimally that is to ensure that the appropriate device_map
and other files are created by the same interfaces on any system
where this project is present. That would necessarially also
include a "device clean script".
> 2) HAL
> If I understand it correctly, I think Gary mentioned HAL in the
> LSARC because he wanted HAL to support Object Reuse and Audit.I checked
Moving forward, HAL supports these for the objects that HAL
manages. IIRC, these are generally removalbe media devices.
If HAL were the manager for SANE (as it would seem useful to be,
since it now manages cpufrequency, system suspend, monitor brightness
-- and the kitchen sink), then it is necessary for the SANE project
to correctly support object reuse, access control and audit within
the HAL framework.
> SANE does not depend on HAL for device access control.
Why shouldn't it? Isn't it removable media?
> > Therefore, I am not sure that this case will be non-controversial
> > or appropriate for FastTrack. At any rate, effort should be made
>
> For LSARC/2007/018, I don't think it's derailed. From the case's log, I
> read the following,
I don't believe the LSARC case was derailed. It went into
waiting need spec. From which it hasn't progressed. Thus
my question of the relationship.
Gary..
