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

[erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>]

> Constructing a namespace without RFNOMNT that does not have #s (say) bound
> is not really securing #s (and its other consumers) against that namespace's
> actions.  Constructing a namespace with RFNOMNT and without #s bound does
> at least two bad things:
>   -> it makes it impossible to pass fds around between processes in this
>      namespace, as there is now no /srv backing.
>   -> it prohibits import of additional resources.

i think you've got the cart before the horse.
i haven't even seen what i think is a compelling
argument for sendfd yet you're trying to argue
for second-order problems with a particular
application of sendfd.

i would think that in order to justify sendfd one would
need to
- have a reasonable implementation of sendfd and
- a useful application that needs it and can't be
implented correctly without it.
it would be more convincing with a paper
that considers other options and makes the
argument for sendfd.

with that in hand, it then would make sense
to talk about second-order problems.

- erik