Urban Widmark wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Roy Stogner wrote:
>
> > I'm don't want to write a new autofs module because it's a lot of work
> > and bad design. I don't want to do that loopback mount hack because
> > it's *really* bad design (although my only major qualms are
> > performance concerns; I am going to give it a try and see how it turns
> > out...). And I don't want to write a new vfs driver because, even
> > though it seems like the Right Thing to do, it's the most work of the
> > lot.
>
> Yes ... something like what devfs does? Creating directories for each
> server it finds (each server it's userspace daemon finds), creating
> subdirectories for each share (when someone accesses the dir).
That's what autofs does. That far it is easy. The hard part is that a
stat() is an *access*... and so, it should logically mount the share.
Problem. Big problem. The hard part with browsing is to spoof the
stat() so that it doesn't mount every single share on "ls -l" or by
pointing a GUI browser at it.
-hpa
--
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> at work, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
