From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <389f7c6be0fd771d00fd464fe5c95a37@plan9.bell-labs.com>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: RE: [9fans] u9fs
From: "Russ Cox" <rsc@plan9.bell-labs.com>
In-Reply-To: <00f801c2c942$d8eed330$7e0101c8@bambino>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:39:29 -0500
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 4afcf968-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> I would expect that if you make Twrite, Twstat, Tremove, and Tcreate
> fail, that would do just fine.
> Make sure that Twrites to auth fids are still allowed.

Also Topen ORCLOSE, OTRUNC.

The new u9fs doesn't have
a -r flag because we don't use it,
so I didn't implement it.  Same for
chroot and some other things that
have made their way back.

While I'd be happy to pick up a -r flag, I'm
hesitant about having a per-directory .u9fs
file.  That seems too specific to your particular case.

I'm torn about the uid mappings.  I feel like
there should be a more general solution.
With real authentication, factotum just does
the right thing.  (For example, I have an account
called bozo on sources.  I run 9fs sources and it
automatically uses that name because it's the only
key I have for the machine.)  When there's no authentication,
it's a little harder.  I'm having the same problem
with an NFS client I'm writing.  I'm not sure
what to do.

Russ