From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Enache Adrian To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] x10 Message-ID: <20040407204607.GA2551@ratsnest.hole> References: <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