From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Nigel Roles" <nigel@9fs.org>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: RE: [9fans] u9fs
Message-ID: <00f801c2c942$d8eed330$7e0101c8@bambino>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <200301311535.h0VFZsY04092@zamenhof.cs.utwente.nl>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 16:07:21 +0000
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 4aeabe9c-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025


> I have been toying with the idea of allowing even greater control at
the unix side, by allowing a ``readonly''
> keyword with a user name in the .u9fs file. Suppose I would like to
put readonly access back in, would it be
> sufficient to look at 3ed u9fs and ``copy'' from there? Or are there
cases that I would miss?

I would expect that if you make Twrite, Twstat, Tremove, and Tcreate
fail, that would do just fine.
Make sure that Twrites to auth fids are still allowed.