[e-lang] E + MinorFs + AppArmor: adding Tahoe to the stack ?
capibara at xs4all.nl
Tue Jan 26 05:15:43 PST 2010
As many of you may know, I've been advocating stacking up E and its
persistent VATs with MinorFs its pseudo persistent process private data
and MinorFs its ability to define static least privilege for file-system
(see my old presentation on the subject http://polacanthus.net/MinorFS.pdf )
Unfortunately it seems almost impossible to make MinorFs/AppArmor
enthusiasts to even try the (admittedly esoteric) e language, or to get
any response at all from the e language community on the usage of
I have two questions to what I would like to ask your opinions on:
1) Do you feel it is realistic to bridge the apparent gap between
MinorFs/AppArmor enthusiasts and e-language enthusiasts? And if so
what would be needed to do this?
2) It seems like a very interesting concept to somehow add Tahoe to the
E/MinorFs/AppArmor stack, potentially allowing object granularity
persistence in a robust distributed storage system. Would this be
a good concept to explore, and if it is, would it possibly help
to close the gap (people wise) between MinorFs/AppArmor and E?
3) If adding Tahoe to the stack is a usefull concept, what do you think
would need to change in how MinorFs and Tahoe work now to make the two
work together optimally?
More information about the e-lang