On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 19:57 +0000, Charles Forsyth wrote: > >It now seems, that if your process has a read/write access to > >a channel capable of speaking 9P not letting it mount that > >channel really doesn't accomplish much: whatever messages kernel > >would send on your behalf, you can send directly. > > note that if a Chan has once been mounted it can no longer > be read or written except through devmnt.
That's a good point. Mounted channels do introduce a third clause into this taxonomy -- channels which are only good for mounting. >From that standpoint they really start to look more like user-visible incarnations of #M, which would lump them into devices category. IOW, the appearance of extra security ramifications here is a bit deceiving. Thanks, Roman.
