Dave Wolff Wrote:
==============
Which brings up another point. Say localUserA logs in and gets a token
for remoteUserA. Then localUserB logs in and is mapped to the
same remoteUserA. localUserB should then need to provide the
password for remoteUserA, and once authenticated would get a seperate
token. Now, the server doesn't know the difference between localUserA
and localUserB, he doesn't need to. So should we have two different
tokens or just a single token shared by both?
============
Good question. Other than making sure we invalidate the token when
there are no more connections as a particular user, I can't think of
issues either way. It could be we actually hand't decided that yet ;-)
If we write something like:
uid:token:mnt_pt
to the /proc/ system, then we could almost just say in the pam module
"if uid exists in /proc, dont re-write the uid:token, just verify the
username and password and immediatley invalidate the token from the
server" - So the server would respond to the second login with a token,
that token would be invalidated, and the client would use the existing
token for further communication.
Nate
|
