From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <89FDB329-B008-41C3-BAB2-3B8B801BE9B2@gmail.com> <1535826761.2639612.1493636488.3B1D204B@webmail.messagingengine.com> From: hiro <23hiro@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2018 13:32:57 +0200 Message-ID: To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [9fans] 9P or better file services for multiple platforms Topicbox-Message-UUID: df8454e2-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On 9/2/18, Lucio De Re wrote: > On 9/2/18, Lucio De Re wrote: >> On 9/1/18, hiro <23hiro@gmail.com> wrote: >>> no, 9p2000.L or Linux syscalls are not supported by plan9. >>> >>> >> So Ethan is right, this is a "lark", if an interesting one. 9P is >> getting quite a few "takers". I seem to recall a paper on adding Plan >> 9 authentication to the Linux kernel, for purposes beyond the Plan 9 >> scope? That also needed 9P features. >> > Found it > : > > "This paper discusses the extension of Linux authentication > mechanisms to allow the use of the Plan 9 approach with > existing Linux applications in order to reduce the security > risks mentioned earlier. It describes the port of the Plan 9 > capability device as a character device driver for the Linux > kernel. It also describes the port of the Plan 9 authentication > server and the implementation of a PAM module which > allows the use of these new facilities. It is now possible to > restrain processes like login and su from the uncontrolled setuid > bit and make them run on behalf of an unprivileged user > in Linux." > > Lucio. > > sounds like a linux-centric approach, with little or even no novelty. once you have to deal with stuff like PAM you can give up altogether.