Re: um-ppp installation
philippe brochard <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> but I think it's a good thing if we can run it with an unprivileged user.
I'm not sure if there's any sensible way to delegate control over just
some parts of the networking (e.g different network interfaces), but
until someone comes up with a good model for that, it should be
possible to delegate control over all networkish things by changing
the owner of /servers/socket/2, and adding that uid to users or
processes you want to be able to control the networking.
Some questions (which is why I'm adding bug-hurd to the recipients):
1. Has anybody thought about partial delegation of networking? Does
that make sense at all?
2. Is the group of /servers/socket/2 relevant, or should it be? To me, it
seems cleaner to add network admins to a special group than using a
special network-admin uid.
3. Is there a reasonable way to give a user additional uid:s
automatically at login?
(On second thought, you probably have to change the owner and
permission on some other nodes as well, to make sure that pfinet gets
access to ethernet hardware and stuff. And then one should probably
think a little about what a "privileged (< 1024) port means when
pfinet doesn't run as root. This seems a little harier than I'd