[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <502BE247.7000308@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 10:54:15 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: blp@...stanford.edu
CC: Stanislav Kinsbursky <skinsbursky@...allels.com>,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net,
thierry.reding@...onic-design.de, bfields@...hat.com,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, xemul@...allels.com, neilb@...e.de,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, paul.gortmaker@...driver.com,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, gorcunov@...nvz.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com,
devel@...nvz.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] net: socket bind to file descriptor introduced
On 08/15/2012 09:52 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Stanislav Kinsbursky <skinsbursky@...allels.com> writes:
>
>> This system call is especially required for UNIX sockets, which has name
>> lenght limitation.
>
> The worst of the name length limitations can be worked around by
> opening the directory where the socket is to go as a file
> descriptor, then using /proc/self/fd/<fd>/<basename> as the name
> of the socket. This technique also works with "connect" and in
> other contexts where a struct sockaddr is needed. At first
> glance, it looks like your patches only help with "bind".
>
The really hard part is what to do with things that are supposed to
return a struct sockaddr. I also have some reservations about using a
new system call to deal with what at least theoretically is only part of
one socket domain.
-hpa
--
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