[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120810191149.GA17985@fieldses.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 15:11:50 -0400
From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Stanislav Kinsbursky <skinsbursky@...allels.com>,
Trond.Myklebust@...app.com, davem@...emloft.net,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
xemul@...allels.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com, devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] net: connect to UNIX sockets from specified
root
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 07:26:28PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > On that whole subject...
> >
> > Do we need a Unix domain socket equivalent to openat()?
>
> I don't think so. The name is just a file system indexing trick, it's not
> really the socket proper. It's little more than "ascii string with
> permissions attached"
That's overstating the case. As I understand it the address is resolved
by a pathname lookup like any other--it can follow symlinks, is relative
to the current working directory and filesystem namespace, etc. So a
unix-domain socket equivalent to openat() would at least be
well-defined--whether it's needed or not, I don't know.
--b.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists