From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <71a9d8b886bdb13133fcbe21d11d897a@quanstro.net>
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Sun,  4 Jan 2009 00:40:53 -0500
To: 9fans@9fans.net
In-Reply-To: <1231045215.11463.239.camel@goose.sun.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] directly opening Plan9 devices
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 774f629a-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Sun Jan  4 00:01:18 EST 2009, rvs@sun.com wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-01-03 at 17:56 -0500, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > > Isn't it too restrictive, eg, not allowing you to create pipes?
> >
> > pipes certianly are an exception.  why can the others
> > be bound for you if your jailer sees fit?
>
> Why would you call pipes an exception? Is there anything special
> about them?(*)

their implementation uses #| and thus requires an exception to
RFNOMNT for pipes to work for jailed processes.

i guess i don't see this one as a problem for this case.  #|
is self-contained and pipes themselves are not named.
regardless, it is inconsistent.  it might be advantagous to
replace the pipe device.  perhaps for profiling.

replacing devcons and proc seem more interseting.  by replacing
#p and #c, one could accomplish quite a bit of clustering.
i would imagine ron has done this a few times. :-)

- erik