New param "source environment"?

[Michel Banguerski]

Hello everybody, let me introduce myself:
Michel Banguerski, admin at xoom.fr (soon online) and
unix consultant at trendmicro.fr <- this one matters here

I'm currently studing a way to integrate the trendmicro's 
virus scaner in samba, this hybrid could compete with NT
servers running antiviruses like 'ServerProtect' from trend.

The main problem i have is licence issues: i give much credit
to GPL (there is an autograph of Richard Stallman on the laptop
i use to write this mail :o), unfortunately trendmicro is not
ready for the open source adventure.

One solution the looks good to me is to give samba more abstraction
about filesystem (that's why i write in this thread), suffisent to 
allow samba to use binary modules. Then smb.conf could look like this:

.....
[share]
    path = /path/to/share
    browseable = yes
    public = no
    writable = yes
    fs lib = /path/to/lib.so
    fs args = 'arg1=val1 arg2=val2 ...' #like append in lilo
.....

to acheive that one need enrich the share structure with appropriate 
func pointers and other sugar, insert dlopen and dlsym's in the code
just after a smbd is spawn to answer a session request.

I've just stared studing the smbd code to find a way to do that properly.
Once sure that this is possible, my plans was to contact the samba team
and ask thier opinion about all this (espesially if such approach would
not violate the terms of samba licence), but this tread (wich confirm my
hope that this work could be porfitable for *both* samba and trend) apared
to me a great opporunity to start the discution.


At last, a very important disclamer: In no way I do not reprensent TRENDMICRO
i'm just yet anothier hacker, tryin' to have fun (and may be some bucks :).

The only point with trend, that they promised my access to the api specs for
their libs if i can convice them that all this have a chance to work, but 
nothing offical yet.


Best Regards.



On Wed, Jul 21, 1999 at 08:54:03PM +1000, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Dan Kaminsky wrote:
> 
> > > hum, _someone's_ got to write a vfs module [that doesn't actually do
> > > direct-file stuff already in smbd], if ever it's to be proven!
> > 
> > True.  I just don't like the idea of, "No, don't do it like that, it's
> > better for a VFS module."  VFS is probably ideal for any kind of per-file
> > operation that occurs on a semi-global scale.  Per-file operations on
> > limited numbers of files, or most dynamic reconfigurations do just fine in
> > script format, and are much much much easier to write.
> > 
> > Audit Logs?  VFS. 
> 
> hmm...
> 
> > Dynamic Reconfigs?  Shell Scripts do fine.  :-)
> 
> ok.  are these "shell scripts" for per-file processing?  if so, then
> suggest writing a vfs module that does the "shell script" reading /
> parsing / actioning.  just for fun.
> 
> if not, then yes: forget vfs, put it as another smb.conf option.
>