From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Enache Adrian <enache@rdslink.ro>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] x10
Message-ID: <20040407204607.GA2551@ratsnest.hole>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404061200380.7172-100000@maxroach.lanl.gov> <b057e6f1682777ba12cd56d37839c13e@vitanuova.com> <20040406204629.GA1607@ratsnest.hole> <40734390.4000806@swtch.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <40734390.4000806@swtch.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
Date: Wed,  7 Apr 2004 23:46:07 +0300
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 54a62104-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 a.d., Russ Cox wrote:
> Enache Adrian wrote:
> >On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 a.d., rog@vitanuova.com wrote:
> >
> >>% bind -b /tmp /dev
> >
> >That could be dangerous too.
> >I'd like a rfork flag to prevent bind() altogether.
> 
> why?  you can only hurt yourself.

How can I enforce static namespace semantics upon a process ?
Stop it from lying to its children about /dev/zero being /dev/random ?
Or letting them happily fill up the disk when writing to /dev/null ?

Regards,
Adi