Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 23:39:28 +0100 (MET) From: J Wunsch <j@uriah.heep.sax.de> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org (FreeBSD hackers) Cc: lyndon@orthanc.com (Lyndon Nerenberg) Subject: Re: Automounting CD-ROMs Message-ID: <199511022239.XAA16203@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <199511021912.LAA05649@multivac.orthanc.com> from "Lyndon Nerenberg" at Nov 2, 95 11:12:45 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: > > I don't buy the argument that having the process hanging around is > going to burn a ton of memory. Most of the time the active code set > would be a short loop probing the device(s). The rest would page out > if real memory was scarce. The SGI manager also didn't buy this argument. They didn't buy it in a lot of places, and the result was an operating system that nobody does really wanna use. :-) > Personally, I don't care whether we handle the problem with a daemon > or standalone command, That wasn't the point. However, i think "on demand" (``automount'') is better than "in advance, since there might be some demand some time later" (``mediad''). > just so long as I (the sysadmin) can specify > what devices the lusers are and are *not* allowed to fiddle with, > and that if luser-1 mounts a volume, luser-2 cannot unmount it to > create a denial of service type attack. Even SGI fails this criterium. Simply log in as luser-2 over the network, type "eject" (well, sometimes you have to type something obvious like "eject /dev/rdsk/fds0d2.3.5.20m" instead :), and *plong*, luser-1 will happily pick up his floptical right out of the slot. ;-) But that doesn't mean i wouldn't agree to your wishlist. Somebody has to implement it however. -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199511022239.XAA16203>