[tahoe-dev] E + MinorFs + AppArmor: adding Tahoe to the stack ?

Rob Meijer capibara at xs4all.nl
Tue Jan 26 13:15:43 UTC 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 tahoe-dev mailing list