4 ms·
> removed on a whim They changed the whole concept of having one single root. As I understand the plan is to use many fragmented and independent filesystem han
by kiriakasis 8y ago
> removed on a whim
They changed the whole concept of having one single root. As I understand the plan is to use many fragmented and independent filesystem handles that can optionally mounted together.
So the restriction is more about non being able to access a folder if you don't have access to an appropriate handle.
Paths like folder1/folder2/../folder2/file are still perfectly fine.
- theoh 8y agoTo clarify: that's the Plan 9 situation. I'm talking about the merits of the Fuchsia situation (".. is no longer available"). References to a forbidden parent directory from a chroot can just return ENOENT, because it doesn't exist in that universe. I may not be understanding this fully, but to condemn ".." based on some accusation that it's incompatible with chroot semantics (or "a holdout from POSIX") seems tendentious.
- AndyMcConachie 8y agoDidn't MS-DOS already do this with letters? (e.g., a:, b:, c:) Maybe I don't really understand Fuchsia's approach. But I do really like OpenBSD's approach in unveil.