> What is the reason for performing namespace > inheritance by copy as opposed to namespace inheritance by reference? > Is it just to simplify the implementation?
i assume by reference you mean shared between parent and child. most of the time you don't want the child process to change the namespace of the parent. > > It seems like it might be useful. For example, if you had a daemon > that automatically reacted to devices, like USB drives and CDs being > attached and mounted them in the namespace, then you might want > processes to inherit from it so they would see new mounts. > for unrelated processes the way to import a namespace from a server is for the server to post the client end of the 9P to /srv; any process needing the service can mount the connection into its namespace. that way access permissions are also enforced. see srv(3) > Also, a totally random question: It seems like poor ergonomics that > one must create empty directories in order to serve as mount points. > Why not just allow mounting to names that don't exist yet? mntgen(4)
