Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2021 09:48:23 -0800 From: Bakul Shah <bakul@iitbombay.org> To: Gleb Popov <arrowd@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: What to use in place of abstract unix sockets? Message-ID: <44CC9776-D2C1-4B37-8758-3D94C35AE97A@iitbombay.org> In-Reply-To: <CALH631kYAz%2B_=p6VUhxzx0tz8eox804PCK5A9POxQkZTdThZCQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CALH631kYAz%2B_=p6VUhxzx0tz8eox804PCK5A9POxQkZTdThZCQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Dec 7, 2021, at 10:44 PM, Gleb Popov <arrowd@freebsd.org> wrote: >=20 > =EF=BB=BFHello hackers. >=20 > I'm porting a software that does the following things on Linux: >=20 > 1. Binds an abstract UDS (the socket name starts with '\0') > 2. Launches a "client" process. > 3. "Client" uses chroot() to constrain itself in a sort of jail. > 4. "Client" connects to the abstract UDS. >=20 > =46rom what I can tell, this works because abstract UDS's do not use the > filesystem namespace, which is why "client" can connect out of the > chroot'ed environment. >=20 > What can I do to make this software work for FreeBSD? Simply using regular= > UDS instead of abstract ones doesn't work for obvious reasons - the > "client" can't find the socket file. >=20 > Thanks in advance. Can you not pass one end of unix domain socketpair via sendmsg/recvmsg?=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44CC9776-D2C1-4B37-8758-3D94C35AE97A>