From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Tue,  2 Dec 2008 17:21:38 -0800
From: "Roman V. Shaposhnik" <rvs@sun.com>
In-reply-to: <1aac8590e5d726419683d3f01a9d11f1@quanstro.net>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Message-id: <1228267298.16585.58.camel@goose.sun.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
References: <1aac8590e5d726419683d3f01a9d11f1@quanstro.net>
Subject: Re: [9fans] How to implement a moral equivalent of automounter
	in	Plan9?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 568a11a4-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 19:07 -0500, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > None of these questions are any different in this
> > context than if there was simply some other process
> > sharing the name space and doing the same manipulations.
> >
>
> currently one can prevent external changes to a
> namespace by creating a unique ns with rfork.
> if /proc/$pid/ns were writable, one would not not
> be possible without yet another mechanism.

>>From where I sit, the file permissions seem to be quite an
adequate a measure to be used for restricting access to any
of the files under #p/<id>.

I don't see how ns is different from, lets say, mem.

Thanks,
Roman.