From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Sat,  3 Jan 2009 13:56:36 -0800
From: "Roman V. Shaposhnik" <rvs@sun.com>
In-reply-to: <bad495331f370ebd3d686c7b61c4848d@quanstro.net>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Message-id: <1231019796.11463.212.camel@goose.sun.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
References: <bad495331f370ebd3d686c7b61c4848d@quanstro.net>
Subject: Re: [9fans] directly opening Plan9 devices
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 76afc35c-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Sat, 2009-01-03 at 16:46 -0500, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > while replying to Nathaniel's post it dawned on
> > me that something like this:
> >     open("#c/cons", OWRITE|OCEXEC);
> > completely breaks the paradigm of namespaces.
> >
> > IOW, if I wanted to construct a namespace with
> > a specially crafted server offering /dev/cons,
> > the above would easily break out of that jail.
>
> see RFNOMNT in rfork(2).

Did you see the example I provided in the original
email? "rfork m" is *exactly* RFNOMNT. And it doesn't
seem to work for one simple reason: RFNOMNT doesn't
restrict bind(2).

So the question still stands.

Thanks,
Roman.