From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 12:54:23 +0000 From: "roger peppe" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net> In-Reply-To: <1231466710.6916.95.camel@goose.sun.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <565ecea34171eb37da1e18d5a05ee869@quanstro.net> <1231466710.6916.95.camel@goose.sun.com> Subject: Re: [9fans] Why do we need syspipe() ? Topicbox-Message-UUID: 7de751c6-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Roman V. Shaposhnik wrote: > Multiplexing. If devices exposed channel interface, and got > exported there would be no kernel protecting from clients > sending random sequences of 9P messages (on a single host > you can't mount a channel and then continue reading/writing > 9P messages over it). a year or so back i mentioned a way that this could be done, by having an "auth" (DMAUTH) file visible in the namespace representing the channel to be mounted. you can turn this file into a new namespace by opening it and handing it to an attach message (as the afid). i've probably still got a working inferno kernel that i modified to allow this, but i didn't take it any further. this mechanism *could* potentially be used to replace the # namespace.