On Sunday, 7 December 2025 12:34:24 CET Warner Losh wrote: > On Sat, Dec 6, 2025, 10:12 AM Andrey Erokhin <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On 03/12/2025 15:33, Christian Schoenebeck wrote: > > > On Monday, 1 December 2025 19:00:53 CET Andrey Erokhin wrote: [...] > > > But for passthrough it is not of any use, is it? > > > > Prolly none, just a side effect of how it's implemented. > > Can either make it an error when used with passthrough, or ignore them > > (use default -1 value) when copying options to 9p fs context (with or > > without a warning) > > > > > Also while it is very handy to have a short option name like "uid" and > > > > "gid", for the sake of long term progression and clarity an option name > > like "default-uid" would be more appropriate. > > > > Or rather default_uid, to match other options style? But uid/gid also > > kinda match fmode/dmode :\
Right, that would render it strange having default_uid/default_gid vs. fmod/ gmode when all of them actually mean default values. OK, as fmode/dmode are already there, then let's stick to your initial suggestion of just using uid/gid. But similar to fmode/dmode it should be made clear on documentation level that uid/gid are only useful for mapped security models. > FreeBSD has a mode where you can build the image where the files in the > filesystem are owned by the user with random permission bits, but the > actual owners / modes are in an mtree formatted file. The nopriv imagers > combine the two when making images. It would be nice to have p9 do a > simular mapping for the guest so I can boot test these images more directly > w/o the copyout to the "bootable image". The set the uid feature would > help, true, but leaves me wanting more. And a host level (not yet existing) tool like qemu-9p-chown, qemu-9p-chmod would be less appropriate for your use case? /Christian
