From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Sun,  4 Jan 2009 17:24:47 -0800
From: "Roman V. Shaposhnik" <rvs@sun.com>
In-reply-to: <5f971a06f85a460fe83f7571989845ba@proxima.alt.za>
To: lucio@proxima.alt.za,
	Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Message-id: <1231118687.11463.317.camel@goose.sun.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
References: <5f971a06f85a460fe83f7571989845ba@proxima.alt.za>
Subject: Re: [9fans] sendfd() on native Plan 9?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 793dcee8-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 20:23 +0200, lucio@proxima.alt.za wrote:
> > i haven't even seen what i think is a compelling
> > argument for sendfd yet you're trying to argue
> > for second-order problems with a particular
> > application of sendfd.
> >
> Sendfd() seems to me a somewhat more carefully controlled version of
> /srv.  As it stands, the additional features of sendfd() involving
> security are not present in /srv,

Guys, lets stop talking about security issues. I don't think there are
any that need to be worried about. Nathaniel has identified a couple
of real issues with the current implementation of /srv so lets focus
on those.

> so one can make a case for providing sendfd()
> or a moral equivalent
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ incoming... ;-) (Sorry, couldn't resit)

Thanks,
Roman.