From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Ronald G Minnich <rminnich@lanl.gov>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu, "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <tb+usenet@becket.net>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Private Namespaces for Linux
References: <20011119214624.912781998A@mail.cse.psu.edu> <200111192359.fAJNxvG63915@devil.lucid> <871yitfkle.fsf@becket.becket.net>
In-Reply-To: <871yitfkle.fsf@becket.becket.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <01112013220003.13061@snaresland>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 13:46:03 -0700
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 256dd54c-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

On Tuesday 20 November 2001 10:28, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:

> Is the subject incorrect though?  It's cool to have a port of the Plan
> 9 FS protocol to Linux (et al), but it seems to me that would be a
> different task from private namespaces.

I put private namespaces in too. I.e. I put in system call to support Plan-9
style session, attach, mount, and then have the VFS read/write etc. go to a
VFS with plan9-style operations, communicating 9p to a server (I only have
two: a memfs and a ufs). Union mounts work in the plan 9 style. I also have a
library which does the "hijack function calls to libc" so that you have it
from user mode on other OSes.

Test was to have a login with no mounted file systems available. All you got
was a shell called KISS, which let you do the session/attach/mount commands
and build up your name space. The acid test was, of course, running Emacs. It
worked.

So, yes, this is the correct subject.

ron