Re: Linux On-Demand Network Access (LODNA)

["Vlad C." <vladc6@yahoo.com>]

--- Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com> wrote:
> Please treat at greater length how your proposal
> differs from NFS.

I think NFS is not flexible enough because:

1) NFS requires synchronization of passwd files or
NIS/LDAP to authenticate users (which themselves
require root access on both server and client to
install)
2) NFS by definition understands only its own network
protocol.
3) NFS requires root privileges on the client to
mount. I'm not aware of a way to let normal users
mount an NFS partition other than listing it in the
client's fstab and adding the 'users' option... but
then changing fstab still requires root access.
4) Users have to contact their sysadmin every time
they want to mount a different partition, a different
subdirectory of the same partition, or if they want to
change the local mountpoint, all because the partition
and mountpoint are hard-coded in fstab.

On the other hand, I envision the following:

1) No authentication layer required other than the
authentication built into the protocol. All the user
needs is the DNS/IP address of the server, a username,
a password, a path on the server, and a local
directory they own to act as a mountpoint. Note that
the user's identity on the server is not tied to his
identity on the client, as it is the case with NFS,
but rather the user can chose which username to
"Connect As" when he performs the mount.
2) Support for multiple network protocols.
3) No need for root privileges when choosing what to
mount and where to mount. Some may say this is a
security risk, but I see it as improved usability.
After all, DE-level implementations like KDE's fish:/
don't require root privileges either. Nevertheless, I
think there should be some sort of switch where the
sysadmin can allow/deny user mounting on a global or
per user basis  (rather than a per fstab-line basis).

Reasons 3 and 4 for why NFS is not flexible enough
could also apply to the current Linux implementation
of smbfs, which leads me to believe that part of the
problem lies in the fact that users can't mount
locations that aren't explicitly listed in fstab. I
guess a per fstab-line basis of allowing mounts makes
sense when there are a finite number of devices, but
it doesn't make much sense when there are an infinite
number of network addresses. I'm just thinking out
loud here, but would it be possible to specify ranges
of addresses and directories using wildcards? Such a
line in fstab would look like:
*.myhost.com:/home/* /home/* nfs
rsize=8192,wsize=8192,timeo=14,users

In this case, users could do:
mount -t nfs host1.myhost.com:/home/username
~/remote_home

but they couldn't do:
mount -t nfs host1.myhost.com:/tmp ~/remote_tmp

After receiving several suggestions, it appears that
FUSE (http://fuse.sourceforge.net/) and the various
projects that build on it
(http://fuse.sourceforge.net/filesystems.html) have
the potential to do a lot of what I had envisioned
LODNA doing. Therefore, I realize that there's
probably no need for yet another VFS framework ;)
Nevertheless, I think there is room for improvement
when it comes to giving users more flexibility in
mounting network locations (as described above).

Thanks,
Vlad

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com