Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 11:56:08 -0600 From: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> To: Ladavac Marino <mladavac@metropolitan.at> Cc: "'Dan Seguin'" <dseg@texar.com>, FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Connect and so on.. Message-ID: <37824338.4A65506E@softweyr.com> References: <55586E7391ACD211B9730000C11002761796D2@r-lmh-wi-100.corpnet.at>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ladavac Marino wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dan Seguin [SMTP:dseg@texar.com]
> > Sent: Monday, July 05, 1999 11:22 PM
> > To: Ladavac Marino
> > Cc: FreeBSD Hackers
> > Subject: RE: Connect and so on..
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 28 Jun 1999, Ladavac Marino wrote:
> >
> > > [ML] If I understand this correctly, only the syscall which is
> > > being authenticated must block during the authentication. This
> > > makes the authentication atomic from the viewpoint of the syscall.
> > > The other processes/kernel supported threads may proceed. Sounds like
> > > RAGF(spelling?) scheme you're doing there.
> >
> > What you describe above is correctly expresses what I was trying to
> > say.
> >
> > Could you point me to more about this (RAGF) scheme?
>
> [ML] I don't know if I have spelled it out correctly, but this
> is the authentication scheme used on mainframes (IBM at least) where all
> syscalls are routed through the authentication subsystem before
> proceeding. However, the subsystem seems to reside in kernel, and is
> (possibly precompiled) table driven so that it does not cause gross
> inefficiency.
>
> You should ask a local mainframe guru about that.
RACF. Remote Access Control Facility, IIRC.
--
"Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?"
Wes Peters Softweyr LLC
http://softweyr.com/ wes@softweyr.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?37824338.4A65506E>