From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <0F3972F5-D44B-4231-97FA-C6CE871B032B@gmail.com> <140e7ec30907130124g1a0e4c90m6d83a08516d95463@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 23:45:04 +0200 Message-ID: From: hiro <23hiro@googlemail.com> To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] v9fs question Topicbox-Message-UUID: 1d6e5d20-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 When I need remote access I nowadays use v9fs+ssh. Multi-user auth in kernel like you propose sounds nice and consistent, but too complicated. It doesn't fit linux, and thus an additional deamon would mean one more place of security relevant code prone to bugs. And even if this is only intended to be used locally I don't think it would be good enough for our distributed operating system's main network protocol. >>From a security (and perhaps simplicity) point of view userspace authentication sounds more reasonable to me, p9p together with something like fuse (even together with the new userspace hackery) or perhaps a single-user v9fs combined with inferno for doing the auth/crypt work seems a lot more reasonable to me than additional clever hackery from the plan9 side. Not sure if somebody has something like this working already...