Michael Shapiro wrote: > Exactly: that's the point I was making to Peter. We're saying the same thing. > Therefore, as per what we've both said, the notion that we achieve something > by removing the "svc" from the pathname or creating yet another directory > is just an illusion. My entire point here, SMF_TMPDIR aside, is that the > simplest approach here is just to better define the convention and description > for what is supported and permissible within etc/svc/volatile. e.g. "You can > name something with your FMRI as a prefix and put it there."
That would be fine (though I have to wonder how many volatile temporary directories the system really needs). I was responding to the assertion that none of our rules governed 3rd party applications, a question more general than the one posed here. My point is that even when we cannot enforce a particular interface boundary, the application violates the boundary at its own risk.
