From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Tue,  9 May 2000 12:10:49 -0400
From: dhog@plan9.bell-labs.com dhog@plan9.bell-labs.com
Subject: [9fans] Plan 9 future (Was: Re: Are the Infernospaces gone?)
Topicbox-Message-UUID: a8e7a9fe-eac8-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025
Message-ID: <20000509161049.usm0JQ_TtQCaGuoric36eUX5kGYSwMutaIOhTmcv7m4@z>

viro@math.psu.edu writes:
> Heh ;-) Three sets of patches before we get proper namespaces. Kernel
> _does_ support everything needed  right now, I'll just have to merge
> union-mount patch and add a new flag to clone(2) (==rfork()). BTW, the
> last set fed into the tree (hopefully to be there in pre7-7) includes the
> equivalent of bind(2) and support for disjoint mount trees.

How do you deal with the rather obvious security problems, eg:

	$ bind passwd /etc/passwd
	$ su - root

?

Do setuid programs get a fresh name space?

Note that Plan 9 doesn't have setuid...