From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-Id: From: Eric Van Hensbergen To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> In-Reply-To: <140e7ec30907140034j5a206e44oc36cc19fa805d63c@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 7A341) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:10:59 -0500 References: <0F3972F5-D44B-4231-97FA-C6CE871B032B@gmail.com> <140e7ec30907130124g1a0e4c90m6d83a08516d95463@mail.gmail.com> <140e7ec30907140034j5a206e44oc36cc19fa805d63c@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [9fans] v9fs question Topicbox-Message-UUID: 1f9acd9a-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Jul 14, 2009, at 2:34 AM, sqweek wrote: > 2009/7/13 Latchesar Ionkov : >> > >> Adding the support we had before the access= support is probably >> easy, >> but I would like to make it better and support authentication for >> multiple users. Still no idea what is the correct way. :( Any >> suggestions are welcome. > > Can't help you there - I'm not sure it makes sense to try and put > factotum's functionality in the linux kernel... Probably don't need factotum in kernel, Linux has a keyring facility that can be used to query userspace agents (like factotum). We'd just need the right hooks in v9fs and potentially a glue application to match the kernel keyring API. > Is there some problem > with the private namespace/individual user mount approach? > Main annoyance is the lack of a proper srv device in Linux to facilitate sharing already open connections. This is t a problem for per-user mounts --- but is a problem for private namespaces. You can use p9p srv as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, but then you incur some additional overhead. -Eric