From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Wed Feb 19 12:39:36 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22B20238E8C for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 12:39:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mozolevsky@gmail.com) Received: from mail-oi1-f174.google.com (mail-oi1-f174.google.com [209.85.167.174]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48My3B42Zcz4Yk0 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 12:39:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mozolevsky@gmail.com) Received: by mail-oi1-f174.google.com with SMTP id p125so23612923oif.10 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 04:39:34 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=TM2ujgRky5+ul2qLbB8pkFWc/PhTka/XQISgGJuKtZE=; b=CCCUgbndtx7oUOuyz9Kmbgv2QKZ8tXxFcfDgXMCaYpdw2y/szWhZheoeGivDNu0ICG +oYWgjLRjYl1kHAMHocloFby8QjpggHoL/ST6yC7yHl9lRmHSlkzc/od3TSQg84vCc8G A5Dp/hADFVEvmeDf/4Cz88c4fObm7wE46cZlWNFL3rAwq3CmeGONqBHYmO9KBBOJBeyX AMQNFzPBEGLLOF3V40pphRtVC+JKr/LqrYnfgxq0aFlSFj9zLPjdDwO/DtmJyXZn8Kp4 VudtRVEpa/+X3Dr9AojPgz+TBIx7+uMwBwUye/c0mxColszQQ7qFiQaZpyE6o0Xepyw3 UsVg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXe6bs2LFEoBhpLyZhIlaEpJJwb6JWynr4DFy4lmWgNiGuQnNTb G3khJdx+xMPP4Qy83WFO8CAEVTeRxsVjOB9Uz5H/lg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyN0VMSTe1SOx0024FeuqTDYxwtBtXQP8/pL9vAt08JtmMGhWhBvIVyPRyTj/NrqAbbRuen6JtzQKTdOBuPca8= X-Received: by 2002:aca:d5d3:: with SMTP id m202mr4257327oig.161.1582115973194; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 04:39:33 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <661730512.20200217141432@mail.ru> <419974027.20200217155651@mail.ru> <77695285.20200219105817@mail.ru> In-Reply-To: <77695285.20200219105817@mail.ru> From: Igor Mozolevsky Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 12:38:57 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: is there a future for user accounting (getpw* replacement) To: Anthony Pankov Cc: FreeBSD Hackers Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 48My3B42Zcz4Yk0 X-Spamd-Bar: --- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of mozolevsky@gmail.com designates 209.85.167.174 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=mozolevsky@gmail.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.05 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:209.85.128.0/17:c]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[hybrid-lab.co.uk]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[174.167.85.209.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.0]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; IP_SCORE(-1.05)[ip: (-0.55), ipnet: 209.85.128.0/17(-3.00), asn: 15169(-1.68), country: US(-0.05)]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[igor@hybrid-lab.co.uk,mozolevsky@gmail.com]; FREEMAIL_TO(0.00)[mail.ru]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_POSSIBLE(0.00)[174.167.85.209.rep.mailspike.net : 127.0.0.17]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:209.85.128.0/17, country:US]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[igor@hybrid-lab.co.uk,mozolevsky@gmail.com]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 12:39:36 -0000 On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 07:58, Anthony Pankov wrote: > I think it is greatly depends of system appliance. If we speak > about *system* as of part of IT infrastructure that provides some > technical service then I fully agree. Excess users is disadvantage > and OS survival is equal to *system* survival. > > But if our deployment include applications human interact with > then *system* concept goes wider. In this case OS survival is not > equal to *system* survival. When users/orgs lost their data or facing > *system* malfunction they don't care that underlining OS did > survive and not compromised. I think that in wider *system* concept > idea to bring to OS fine tuned users accounting that will be shared between > applications have to be considered. Well, a user might care if another user steals the former's data in a misconfigured system by bypassing application admission control and going straight to the OS! Like I said before, by the sound of it, what you want is either RFC4422 (aka SASL), or PAM, if you really have to! Best, -- Igor M.