From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 16:55:51 -0800 From: "Russ Cox" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net> Subject: Re: [9fans] How to implement a moral equivalent of automounter in Plan9? In-Reply-To: <1228155909.18951.33.camel@goose.sun.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <1FAD6133-18F8-444F-BD6E-795999DE3170@sun.com> <1228155909.18951.33.camel@goose.sun.com> Topicbox-Message-UUID: 55772e14-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > Russ, could, you please be a tad more specific as to what ill > exactly are you referring to? I was referring to needing special privilege to mount something. > While I agree that Plan9 completely removes the need for > automounter to be a privileged application, I still don't > see an easy way (expect may be bns and adsrv) to have that > other property of automounter being easily implemented > within Plan9 framework. I described a simple shim program (as did Dan Cross) that would work just fine, for one user. > That's very similar to what I referred to as a "synthetic filesystem > doing the right stuff". But as I pointed out in my original email > this approach has a downside of never exporting these mounts > into the namespace of the process that caused them. You'd have the program export its own name space, a delicate but not impossible dance. Then its mounts would be exported too. > I guess I'm not quite following you here. What I'm talking about is > a per-process modifications of namespace by some external agent > (be it kernel driver or userspace application). As such it is not > at all different from a user issuing something like "9fs name" > directly. That's fine. > Could you, please, elaborate what exact multi-user scenario do you > have in mind? I was talking about multiple users sharing a single automounter, like in modern Unixes. Russ