Hi;
If the HPC profile defines the semantics of something and the JSDL spec
doesn't then that implies that some other profile is free to define the
semantics differently. Is that really what you want to allow? That
seems like it will invite unexpected mishaps for anyone who tries to run
both HPC and other workloads on a grid.
Marvin.
-----Original Message-----
From: Andreas Savva [mailto:andreas.savva@jp.fujitsu.com]
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:10 PM
To: Michel Drescher
Cc: Donal K. Fellows; Marvin Theimer; JSDL Working Group;
ogsa-bes-wg@ggf.org; Ed Lassettre; Ming Xu (WINDOWS)
Subject: Re: [ogsa-bes-wg] Re: [jsdl-wg] Questions and potential changes
to JSDL, as seen from HPC Profile point-of-view
Comments inline.
Michel Drescher wrote:
Donal K. Fellows wrote:
Marvin Theimer wrote:
If we narrow the definitions of mountpoint and mountsource enough
and
precisely describe their semantics then we might arrive at something
that could be fairly widely used. I'm thinking of things like
saying
that you can't navigate "out" of a file system via "cd ..", etc.
This is definitely something to explore.
Change "can't" to "shouldn't" and I'd agree. I don't regard the mount
stuff as being a way of describing security enforcement points.
Systems
can do it that way, but at least some won't.
+1 from me. In fact, I think this should be part of JSDL in a
"maintenance release" sort of publication anyway.
-1 from me for adding this in JSDL. It is not a language issue. I do
think the HPC Profile should probably speak to this with respect to the
execution environment that a job should expect.
In fact, I'd be happy enough with the profile stating that paths in
JSDL
documents should not contain either the "." or the ".." elements at
all.
That's a fairly strong requirement and guarantees that the job won't
fail on systems where your style of semantics are enforced.
Again, +1
(and having it normatively mentioned in the JSDL publication)
I too see this is a profiling issue. I have no problem for the HPC
profile to make a stronger statement than the JSDL spec on this as a
security consideration.
So -1 from me for adding this in the JSDL spec normatively.