On 6/21/07, Neal H. Walfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At Thu, 21 Jun 2007 00:09:45 +0800, Wei Shen wrote: > I still think there are ways to solve this problem. For example, the fs > server can add an virtual root argument to the passive translator, and the > translator (which we trust) will later add this virtual root to any path > argument provided by the chroot process. How does it know the process is chroot'ed?
Who? The fs server or the translator? I think at least the fs server should know. Am I right? The translator needs not to know whether a process is chrooted or not, it just always adds (for any process) the virtual root argument saved when it is associated with the file node. Of course, another choice is let the fs server tell him as suggested by my second example. Wei
_______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
