Re: [9fans] sendfd() on native Plan 9?

[lucio@proxima.alt.za]

>> Would that satisfy your requirements?  Oh, sure, I haven't ever used
>> #| directly and I'm a bit ignorant of consequences, but the rest seems
>> feasible.
>
> I suspect #| being an exception wouldn't hurt, though it might be viewed as
> a historical wart, being the only one... could #| be made to operate more
> like devdup and given a canonical mountpoint?
>
I'd love to see that, although I respect the Plan 9 developers enough
to believe they have given the issue plenty of thought.  Still, there
have been some instance of expedience (don't ask me, I may have to
take this back :-) and perhaps there is another way if one looks
beyond the present boundaries.

>> Another aspect I noticed is that what you seem to need is a
>> finer-grained construction of #p and #s, but being able to construct
>> them one layer further down the hierarchy might suffice.
>
> "one layer further down the hierarchy" ?
>
Well, if you could bind a subset of #s by some selection criterion -
specifically process group, but who's to know what else might be
useful?  - say, back onto a local /srv, you may have a sensible
mechanism for jailing processes.  But I'm once again speculating
outside my knowledge and experience.

>> Just an uneducated opinion, I've had little occasion to study those
>> specific devices or the others in any detail.  But I am curious of
>> where this discussion could lead.
>
> I too.

I have a feeling this is heading precisely where I would have liked to
go a year or so ago, namely putting Plan 9 at the bottom of a
paravirtualising executive.  If that is the case, count me in on any
further developments.

++L