----- Original Message ----- From: "Yaniv Kaul" <ykaul@redhat.com> Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 2:04:59 PM
On 05/13/2012 11:54 AM, Einav Cohen wrote:
[top posting]
GUI Mockup has been updated according to this thread: http://www.ovirt.org/wiki/Features/PosixFSConnection#Changes_in_GUI Further comments are welcome. - POSIX, not Posix. - 'POSIX compliant FS', not 'PosixFS'
- Mockups updated. - rest-api change is probably needed [Ori/Geert/Yair - FYI]
- I'd be happy if we could validate whatever we pass to the mount command against command injection[1] .
Ayal/Saggi: Do we have such validation on vdsm? I think we can start with that, we can always add validation to the engine core/UI later.
Y. [1] https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Command_Injection
---- Thanks, Einav
----- Original Message -----
From: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs@redhat.com> To: "Einav Cohen" <ecohen@redhat.com> Cc: "Ayal Baron" <abaron@redhat.com> , engine-devel@ovirt.org , "Simon Grinberg" <sgrinber@redhat.com> , "Saggi Mizrahi" <smizrahi@redhat.com> , "Geert Jansen" <gjansen@redhat.com> , "Ori Liel" <oliel@redhat.com> , "Miki Kenneth" <mkenneth@redhat.com> , "Andrew Cathrow" <acathrow@redhat.com> Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 10:05:23 AM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] PosixFS: GUI mock-ups have been updated
On 05/11/2012 11:28 PM, Einav Cohen wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ayal Baron" <abaron@redhat.com> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 11:03:04 PM
----- Original Message -----
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ayal Baron" <abaron@redhat.com> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 11:39:42 AM
----- Original Message -----
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ayal Baron" <abaron@redhat.com> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 10:46:44 PM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Einav Cohen" <ecohen@redhat.com> To: "Andrew Cathrow" <acathrow@redhat.com> Cc: engine-devel@ovirt.org , "Simon Grinberg" <sgrinber@redhat.com> , "Saggi Mizrahi" <smizrahi@redhat.com> , "Geert Jansen" <gjansen@redhat.com> , "Ori Liel" <oliel@redhat.com> , "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs@redhat.com> , "Ayal Baron" <abaron@redhat.com> , "Miki Kenneth" <mkenneth@redhat.com> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 2:05:55 PM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] PosixFS: GUI mock-ups have been updated
...
The important thing is that it's clear what it is - eg. the remote/target not the local mount point. That could be accomplished in the tool tip, etc. So if there will be a tool-tip (or similar) in the GUI explaining what this field is supposed to be, are you OK with keeping the term "Path" (in both GUI and rest-api)? I am , does everyone else agree. either 'path' or 'device' - "Path" it is. +1 on "path" and this was my original implementation by the way.
- Instead of a tool-tip, I suggest to use an explanation caption below the text-box (similar to what we have for NFS storage domain - see attached). Agreed? i.e. "Path to device to mount / remote export" or something? Yes, that's a good answer to the question afterwards :) But what do you think about the general idea of using an explanation caption below the "Path" text-box (instead of a tool-tip that was suggested here earlier)?
Also, do you think that the above should be the exact phrasing? The NFS one is: "Please use 'FQDN:/path' or 'IP:/path' Example 'server.example.com:/export/VMs'" so maybe a "Please use" should be incorporated in this case as well, maybe also an example, etc. What do you think? I replied after viewing the other message and disliking it (personal opinion). I prefer a static explanation (what the field is) rather than an action request. So in the NFS example I would've phrased it as "Remote path to NFS export, takes either the form: FQDN:/path or IP:/path, e.g. server.example.com:/export/VMs". But in any event it is better to have consistency (so both messages should probably be phrased similarly). There is no problem changing the phrasing for NFS.
So for NFS, the caption will be: "Remote path to NFS export, takes either the form: FQDN:/path or IP:/path, e.g. server.example.com:/export/VMs".
And for PosixFS, the caption will be: "Path to device to mount / remote export". (no 'takes the form' or example provided)
Agreed?
- What should be the exact phrasing of the explanation text?
"mount [-fnrsvw] [-t vfstype] [-o options] device dir"
device is what is being mounted and in the case of NFS is server:path
There is a reason why we termed it PosixFS and not SharedFS and that users can specify local devices/FS's (and there is no reason to limit it).
Note that if user defines a local FS and adds 2 hosts to the Posix FS DC then 1 host will be non-op
Miki - this is not cluster level seeing as PosixFS is a DC type (afaik) so no need for tooltips about that.
In the future when we get rid of the single storage type in DC limitation then we'll be able to define a local posixFS domain and a shared one.
Andrew/Geert/Simon/Ayal/Miki/Saggi/others: Please feel free to suggest a new term, or vote for one of the previously-discussed terms ("Remote Path" / "Path" / "Mount Spec" / "File System URI"). If no decision will be made here, the term will remain as-is, i.e. "Path". ... _______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel