From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri May 25 9:14:36 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from gw.nectar.com (gw.nectar.com [208.42.49.153]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7846637B422 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 09:14:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nectar@nectar.com) Received: by gw.nectar.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 14E8618C98; Fri, 25 May 2001 11:14:29 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 11:14:28 -0500 From: "Jacques A. Vidrine" To: Matt Dillon Cc: Gordon Tetlow , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: telnet to AF_UNIX sockets [PATCH] Message-ID: <20010525111428.D9939@spawn.nectar.com> Mail-Followup-To: "Jacques A. Vidrine" , Matt Dillon , Gordon Tetlow , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG References: <20010523220844.A26487@shade.nectar.com> <20010524132144.A14177@shade.nectar.com> <200105242024.f4OKO3530561@earth.backplane.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200105242024.f4OKO3530561@earth.backplane.com>; from dillon@earth.backplane.com on Thu, May 24, 2001 at 01:24:03PM -0700 X-Url: http://www.nectar.com/ Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 01:24:03PM -0700, Matt Dillon wrote: > > :Because `all telnet really does is connect to sockets' is patently > :false. Check out the nearly 100 RFCs detailing the TELNET protocol. > :Almost none of these make much sense to do over UNIX domain sockets > :[1]. > > Huh? Oh yah, *that* protocol. Telnet only does that if the server > is a telnetd. Otherwise it's just straight character I/O. What I am saying is that we really should have a separate app to do `just straight character I/O' over whatever medium. There are already several in the ports tree. > Any > experienced sysad knows this from telneting to the web server or > smtp server or pop server, etc etc etc. Being able to telnet to a unix > domain socket is no different. I don't often use telnet for this. Rather, I use netcat. I do recognize that other folks do this. In practice, no harm comes of it. In principal, I think it is silly to try to talk TELNET with something that you know shouldn't be talking TELNET. > Unix domain sockets are a good test of experience. They are obscure > enough that many people don't even realize they exist (and even fewer > know that you can pass file descriptors over them). But unix-domain > sockets are extremely useful in all manner of applications and the > more sophisticated programmers use them all over the place. Being able > to telnet to one is natural. Over the years I've probably > written the 'connect to unix domain socket' program 50 times because > it wasn't standard in a system. Now it is. Yahhh. I agree with the sentiment here. I just don't agree with sticking it in telnet. Perhaps paradoxically, I wouldn't mind so much if inetd + telnetd were updated to support PF_UNIX, too. Then, at least, there would be something to talk NVT to over PF_UNIX :-) But as the original submittor said, this thread is getting silly. I merely wanted to note my objection, not argue about it. I should have also noted that I would have liked /some/ discussion of this on freebsd-net before it was committed, but hey, it's -CURRENT. Cheers, -- Jacques Vidrine / n@nectar.com / jvidrine@verio.net / nectar@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message