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

Sun May 13 13:51:31 UTC 2012

On 05/13/2012 02:04 PM, Yaniv Kaul wrote:
> 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'
> - I'd be happy if we could validate whatever we pass to the mount
> command against command injection[1] .
> 
> 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.
Now that I think of it - maybe we can have "Address" as optional
argument  AND "Path" as mandatory at REST-API?
Examples -
address: 10.35.16.36
path: /export/share1

Will be translated to mountSpec of "10.35.16.36:/export/share1"

path: /home/someuser/domain1

Will be translated to mounSpec of "/home/some/user/domain1".

Thoughts on this?

>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>> - 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
> 