Hi, I'm wondering about the validity of an interpretation of intro(5) and stat(5) that could allow a server to atomically change the directory of a file.
The notation
string[s] (using a literal s character) is shorthand for
s[2] followed by s bytes of UTF-8 text. (Systems may choose
to reduce the set of legal characters to reduce syntactic
problems, for example to remove slashes from name compo-
nents, but the protocol has no such restriction. Plan 9
names may contain any printable character (that is, any
character outside hexadecimal 00-1F and 80-9F) except
slash.).
wstat(5) on the other hand does not say much about the name field of Fcall:
The name can be changed by anyone with write
permission in the parent directory; it is an error to change
the name to that of an existing file.
Now, since the protocol does not restrict names (even if Plan 9 does it), I'm wondering if setting the name to a full path starting from root could be used to change atomically the directory of a file (given the write permission on both original and target directory).
Obviously I'm not referring to Plan 9 file servers (I guess this would be a non retrocompatbile change), but I'm considering if such interpretation would be wrong (according to the official specifications).
A server supporting such behaviour could be considered a 9p2000 conformant server?
Giacomo