From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Ronald G. Minnich" To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] u9fs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 10:12:04 -0700 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 6807680e-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, Russ Cox wrote: > The only use of the attach spec in u9fs is that if you attach > to the name "device" then you can access devices > on the system. Otherwise you're not allowed, so as > to avoid blocking the (single-threaded) server. ah, that is interesting. This is what happens when you re-do an implementation from the man pages. We actually make different use of the attach spec here. It lets you restrict the domain of the server by basically making a fid for the attach lower in the tree than '/'. I guess I'll get the same effect by chroot'ing the server. It's interesting seeing how much I did the same as Plan 9 from the man pages, and how many little differences like this have crept in. I've been using that attach spec for years (and truth to tell, I still like it, but I'm going to stick with stock u9fs). I ran into this just now for this reason: I am running v9fs2k (linux vfs client for 9p2000) on the same laptop as u9fs. I am getting readdir working. The mount point for v9fs2k is /mnt. Things got messy when the server walked over /mnt ... as in deadlock. I never had this type of thing with my old 9p server that I wrote, since the attaches were always below root. Anyway, an easy workaround. thanks ron