> On Feb 27, 2017, at 9:39 AM, Reuti <re...@staff.uni-marburg.de> wrote: > > >> Am 27.02.2017 um 18:24 schrieb Angel de Vicente <ang...@iac.es>: >> >> […] >> >> For a small group of users if the DVM can run with my user and there is >> no restriction on who can use it or if I somehow can authorize others to >> use it (via an authority file or similar) that should be enough. > > AFAICS there is no user authorization at all. Everyone can hijack a running > DVM once he knows the URI. The only problem might be, that all processes are > running under the account of the user who started the DVM. I.e. output files > have to go to the home directory of this user, as any other user can't write > to his own directory any longer this way.
We can add some authorization protection, at least at the user/group level. One can resolve the directory issue by creating some place that has group authorities, and then requesting that to be the working directory. > > Running the DVM under root might help, but this would be a high risk that any > faulty script might write to a place where sensible system information is > stored and may leave the machine unusable afterwards. > I would advise against that > My first attempts using DVM often leads to a terminated DVM once a process > returned with a non-zero exit code. But once the DVM is gone, the queued jobs > might be lost too I fear. I would wish that the DVM could be more forgivable > (or this feature be adjustable what to do in case of a non-zero exit code). We just fixed that issue the other day :-) > > -- Reuti > _______________________________________________ > users mailing list > users@lists.open-mpi.org > https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/users _______________________________________________ users mailing list users@lists.open-mpi.org https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/users
