On Nov 22, 2007 7:01 PM, Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * erik quanstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > have you seen p9p (http://swtch.com/plan9port)? > > Yes, but I'm not yet sure if this is really what I have in mind. > But at least its a good step in that direction. > > I'm intending to trim down uclibc and maybe put the p9p base > library stuff (9P handling, etc) there. This should save us > the glibc overhead.
It could be beneficial to talk with the guys behind RSBAC ( http://www.rsbac.org ). While their security model may differ from Plan 9's, their framework should be a fine tool to add proper semantics, like allowing everybody to have custom namespaces or Plan9 capabilities. After all, their system IIRC discards the whole security mechanism from Unix supplying different modules to create whatever policy you want. And glibc should be damned. IMHO, the main library in the system should be a library written for that OS, not some "multi-platform" thingy designed for different system than its main use :p > cu > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Enrico Weigelt == metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/ > --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Paul Lasek
