[9fans] Is the go9p project still maintained?

[9fans] Is the go9p project still maintained?

[Dmitry Golubovsky]

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

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

[lucio]

> Even if there was a way to pass desired numeric UID to a 9p server,

You're glibly using a single concept, 9P, to describe two not entirely
compatible entities, the Unix and Plan 9 implementations.
Unfortunately, this confuses the issue and I, for one, can't
understand from your description, which is causing the problem or why.

Lucho already asks what use case demands the use of the .u protocol
(something I personally am not familiar with) and perhaps if you
explain the problem in more concrete terms, he'll be able to help you
sooner.  He is, after all, a major contributor to 9P <grin>.

I would like to understand the issue better, too.  go9p is something I
have been tempted to use, but I have not yet had the confidence to do
so.

Lucio.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email has been scanned by the MxScan Email Security System.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[Latchesar Ionkov]

[-- 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 --]

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

[mischief]

thank you for merging some of the patches on the issue tracker, latchesar. :)

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

[Skip Tavakkolian]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1210 bytes --]

i wonder if the fix is to use something like what i did to build the timefs
example on plan9:

https://github.com/9nut/plan9/blob/master/go9p_timefs/timefs.go

essentially implement p.User, p.Group and p.Users interfaces.

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net> wrote:

> I'm sorry, I missed the issue somehow.
>
> I don't see any reason to specify uname when using .u. The .u
> extension favors uid. What is your usecase?
>
> Thanks,
>     Lucho
>
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:50 PM, Dmitry Golubovsky <golubovsky@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > Just wondering if the project https://code.google.com/p/go9p/ is
> > actively maintained these days?
> >
> > I used it in my project, but fixing issue 30 broke it. I opened issue 34
> >
> > https://code.google.com/p/go9p/issues/detail?id=34
> >
> > which also contains a suggested patch. No response since then.
> >
> > If the project's active repo moved please let me know, I'll resubmit
> > the issue there. If the project is not maintained anymore I'll take
> > care of it in my project's local repo.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > --
> > Dmitry Golubovsky
> >
> > Anywhere on the Web
> >
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2015 bytes --]

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

[Latchesar Ionkov]

I'm sorry, I missed the issue somehow.

I don't see any reason to specify uname when using .u. The .u
extension favors uid. What is your usecase?

Thanks,
    Lucho

On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:50 PM, Dmitry Golubovsky <golubovsky@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> Just wondering if the project https://code.google.com/p/go9p/ is
> actively maintained these days?
>
> I used it in my project, but fixing issue 30 broke it. I opened issue 34
>
> https://code.google.com/p/go9p/issues/detail?id=34
>
> which also contains a suggested patch. No response since then.
>
> If the project's active repo moved please let me know, I'll resubmit
> the issue there. If the project is not maintained anymore I'll take
> care of it in my project's local repo.
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Dmitry Golubovsky
>
> Anywhere on the Web
>

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

[minux]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 630 bytes --]

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 12:53 AM, <lucio@proxima.alt.za> wrote:

> > which also contains a suggested patch
>
> Did you check that the proposed patch actually works?
>
> I see no difference between:
>
>         a || b
> and
>         a || (a && b) which is (a || a) && (a || b)
>
a || (a && b) is actually just a fancier way to write a.

if a is true, the result is true,
if a is false, the result will be a && b, however, as a is already false,
it's false.

in go9p.patch, the suggested change is actually from a || b to a || (b &&
a),
this is slightly different. But it's still just a fancier way to write a.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1088 bytes --]

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

[lucio]

> which also contains a suggested patch

Did you check that the proposed patch actually works?

I see no difference between:

	a || b
and
	a || (a && b) which is (a || a) && (a || b)

I may be missing something, of course.

Lucio.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email has been scanned by the MxScan Email Security System.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[mischief]

latchesar fixed a few bugs i reported earlier this year. you might try mailing him directly.

ron also has a fork on github.

[9fans] Is the go9p project still maintained?

[Dmitry Golubovsky]

Hi

Just wondering if the project https://code.google.com/p/go9p/ is
actively maintained these days?

I used it in my project, but fixing issue 30 broke it. I opened issue 34

https://code.google.com/p/go9p/issues/detail?id=34

which also contains a suggested patch. No response since then.

If the project's active repo moved please let me know, I'll resubmit
the issue there. If the project is not maintained anymore I'll take
care of it in my project's local repo.

Thanks.

--
Dmitry Golubovsky

Anywhere on the Web