[Engine-devel] PosixFS: GUI mock-ups have been updated

Sun May 13 11:30:49 UTC 2012

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Yaniv Kaul" <ykaul at 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 at redhat.com> To: "Einav Cohen"
> <ecohen at redhat.com> Cc: "Ayal Baron" <abaron at redhat.com> ,
> engine-devel at ovirt.org , "Simon Grinberg" <sgrinber at redhat.com> ,
> "Saggi Mizrahi" <smizrahi at redhat.com> , "Geert Jansen"
> <gjansen at redhat.com> , "Ori Liel" <oliel at redhat.com> , "Miki
> Kenneth" <mkenneth at redhat.com> , "Andrew Cathrow"
> <acathrow at 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 at redhat.com> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012
> 11:03:04 PM
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ayal Baron" <abaron at redhat.com> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012
> 11:39:42 AM
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ayal Baron" <abaron at redhat.com> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012
> 10:46:44 PM
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> 
> From: "Einav Cohen" <ecohen at redhat.com> To: "Andrew Cathrow"
> <acathrow at redhat.com> Cc: engine-devel at ovirt.org , "Simon Grinberg"
> <sgrinber at redhat.com> ,
> "Saggi Mizrahi" <smizrahi at redhat.com> , "Geert
> Jansen" <gjansen at redhat.com> , "Ori Liel" <oliel at redhat.com> ,
> "Yair
> Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs at redhat.com> , "Ayal Baron" <abaron at redhat.com> ,
> "Miki Kenneth" <mkenneth at 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 at ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
> 