[ogsa-bes-wg] Re: [jsdl-wg] Questions and potential changes to JSDL, as seen from HPC Profile point-of-view

[Andreas Savva]

Hi Marvin,

I think that, in general, if a restriction the HPC profile chooses to
make is specific to its domain then, yes, it is possible that some other
profile may choose to make different choices. Are you saying that JSDL
must be changed to fit exactly what the HPC profile requires?

What we do with the topics below is still under discussion of course. As
I said on the call if the group decides something is a bug then we
should fix it.

Andreas

Marvin Theimer wrote:
> 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 at 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 at 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.
> 

-- 
Andreas Savva
Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd