From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:27:32 +0100
From: Alberto =?iso-8859-1?Q?Cort=E9s?= <alcortes@it.uc3m.es>
To: 9fans <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Is the "cpu" command using version 1 of p9any?
Message-ID: <20070118182732.GC9084@it.uc3m.es>
References: <20070118181143.GA9084@it.uc3m.es>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20070118181143.GA9084@it.uc3m.es>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 05c413c0-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

Alberto Cort=E9s said:

> (3) and (4) look like a "p9any version 1" negotiation. I presume
> these packets are due to /sys/src/cmd/cpu.c:524, a call to
> auth_proxy(2).

Sorry I meant:

    /sys/src/cmd/cpu.c:588

> I believe the above samples comes from calling auth_proxy with
> "proto=3Dp9any role=3Dclient".

and
    "proto=3Dp9any role=3Dserver"


--=20
Alberto Cort=E9s