[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5025FA5A.4090403@parallels.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 10:23:22 +0400
From: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Stanislav Kinsbursky <skinsbursky@...allels.com>
CC: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
"Trond.Myklebust@...app.com" <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
"eric.dumazet@...il.com" <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"viro@...iv.linux.org.uk" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com" <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
"devel@...nvz.org" <devel@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] net: connect to UNIX sockets from specified root
On 08/11/2012 03:09 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 08/10/2012 12:28 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
>> 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 !
>
> Yes, but let's worry about what the Linux behavior should be.
>
>> 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.
>
>
> No, but it is looked up the same way any other inode is (the difference
> between FIFOs and sockets is that sockets have separate connections,
> which is also why open() on sockets would be nice.)
>
> However, there is a fundamental difference between AF_UNIX sockets and
> open(), and that is how the pathname is delivered. It thus would make
> more sense to provide the openat()-like information in struct
> sockaddr_un, but that may be very hard to do in a sensible way. In that
> sense it perhaps would be cleaner to be able to do an open[at]() on the
> socket node with O_PATH (perhaps there should be an O_SOCKET option,
> even?) and pass the resulting file descriptor to bind() or connect().
I vote for this (openat + O_WHATEVER on a unix socket) as well. It will
help us in checkpoint-restore, making handling of overmounted/unlinked
sockets much cleaner.
> -hpa
Thanks,
Pavel
--
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