On Sat, Dec 6, 2025, 10:12 AM Andrey Erokhin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 03/12/2025 15:33, Christian Schoenebeck wrote: > > On Monday, 1 December 2025 19:00:53 CET Andrey Erokhin wrote: > >> I was trying to boot from a directory tree owned by an ordinary user, > >> and some daemons weren't happy about non-root ownership of some files > >> > >> Example use: > >> -virtfs > local,path=rootfs,mount_tag=root,security_model=mapped,uid=0,gid=0 > >> > >> Works with any security_model > > > > First I thought do we really want to open that rabbit hole and add > permission management to the CLI options? However I get why this might be > useful for mapped[-*] security models. > > But for passthrough it is not of any use, is it? > > Prolly none, just a side effect of how it's implemented. > Can either make it an error when used with passthrough, or ignore them > (use default -1 value) when copying options to 9p fs context (with or > without a warning) > > > Also while it is very handy to have a short option name like "uid" and > "gid", for the sake of long term progression and clarity an option name > like "default-uid" would be more appropriate. > > Or rather default_uid, to match other options style? But uid/gid also > kinda match fmode/dmode :\ > FreeBSD has a mode where you can build the image where the files in the filesystem are owned by the user with random permission bits, but the actual owners / modes are in an mtree formatted file. The nopriv imagers combine the two when making images. It would be nice to have p9 do a simular mapping for the guest so I can boot test these images more directly w/o the copyout to the "bootable image". The set the uid feature would help, true, but leaves me wanting more. Warner > The patch is also missing the required documentation changes for these > new options BTW. > > Haven’t added them yet, wasn’t sure there would be interest in this feature > >
