> 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
