[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
access.
(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
MinorFs/AppArmor.

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?

Tnx,

Rob




More information about the tahoe-dev mailing list