[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120810202818.06236f46@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 20:28:18 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
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, 10 Aug 2012 15:11:50 -0400
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org> wrote:
> 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.
Explicitly for Linux yes - this is not generally true of the AF_UNIX
socket domain and even the permissions aspect isn't guaranteed to be
supported on some BSD environments !
The name is however just a proxy for the socket itself. You don't even
get a device node in the usual sense or the same inode in the file system
space.
Alan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists