On 9/2/18, Lucio De Re <lucio.d...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 9/2/18, Lucio De Re <lucio.d...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 9/1/18, hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> no, 9p2000.L or Linux syscalls are not supported by plan9. >>> >>> >> So Ethan is right, this is a "lark", if an interesting one. 9P is >> getting quite a few "takers". I seem to recall a paper on adding Plan >> 9 authentication to the Linux kernel, for purposes beyond the Plan 9 >> scope? That also needed 9P features. >> > Found it > <https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/en//pubs/archive/34433.pdf>: > > "This paper discusses the extension of Linux authentication > mechanisms to allow the use of the Plan 9 approach with > existing Linux applications in order to reduce the security > risks mentioned earlier. It describes the port of the Plan 9 > capability device as a character device driver for the Linux > kernel. It also describes the port of the Plan 9 authentication > server and the implementation of a PAM module which > allows the use of these new facilities. It is now possible to > restrain processes like login and su from the uncontrolled setuid > bit and make them run on behalf of an unprivileged user > in Linux." > > Lucio. > >
sounds like a linux-centric approach, with little or even no novelty. once you have to deal with stuff like PAM you can give up altogether.
