Re: [9fans] Is the go9p project still maintained?

[Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1323 bytes --]

The 9p server gets valid uid, the Linux kernel sends separate Tattach
messages for each user that accesses the server. The issue with remote
systems having different uids is no different than any other remote file
system in Linux. As somebody already mentioned, your patch isn't very
clean, so I am not sure what change of behavior you propose.

Thanks,
    Lucho

On Friday, December 5, 2014, Dmitry Golubovsky <golubovsky@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi
>
> Thanks to everybody who answered. I posted another comment to the issue 34
>
> https://code.google.com/p/go9p/issues/detail?id=34#c2
>
> where explained the use case and provided the diagnostics for the problem.
>
> Briefly, the problem is: when using 9p kernel mounts in Linux over a
> domain socket, a 9p server program never gets a valid numeric user ID,
> just -1 regardless of the username.
>
> Even if there was a way to pass desired numeric UID to a 9p server,
> this would make little sense in case of a remote connection because on
> the remote system the same user would have different (and often
> unknown numeric ID).
>
> So even in the .u mode, fallback character username recognition is
> necessary to use if no valid numeric user ID can be provided.
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Dmitry Golubovsky
>
> Anywhere on the Web
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1671 bytes --]