From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 30 15:21:25 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12804106566C for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:21:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dudu@dudu.ro) Received: from mail-fx0-f218.google.com (mail-fx0-f218.google.com [209.85.220.218]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80D5E8FC0C for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:21:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fxm10 with SMTP id 10so3114365fxm.14 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 07:21:23 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.143.73 with SMTP id t9mr642528fau.89.1259594483212; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 07:21:23 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20091130150127.GA82188@logik.internal.network> References: <20091130142950.GA86528@logik.internal.network> <20091130150127.GA82188@logik.internal.network> From: Vlad Galu Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:21:03 +0200 Message-ID: To: xorquewasp@googlemail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Ivan Voras Subject: Re: UNIX domain sockets on nullfs still broken? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:21:25 -0000 On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 5:01 PM, wrote: > On 2009-11-30 15:43:01, Ivan Voras wrote: >> xorquewasp@googlemail.com wrote: >> > =A076030 initial thread STRU =A0struct sockaddr { AF_LOCAL, /tmp/jack-= 11001/default/jack_0 } >> > =A076030 initial thread NAMI =A0"/tmp/jack-11001/default/jack_0" >> > =A076030 initial thread RET =A0 connect -1 errno 61 Connection refused >> >> I would expect to see this result from the jail since it's obviously a >> Bad Idea, but does it work from the same (host) machine without the jail >> in between (i.e. just the nullfs, no jails)? > > Hm, yes, you're right. It does work without a jail involved. > > What's the sane solution, then, when the only method of communication > is unix domain sockets? For redirecting a connection to a UNIX socket to a remote host:port, there's net/unix2tcp. Perhaps you can patch it to go the other way around as well? > > xw > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org= " >