Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2021 09:43:41 +0300 From: Gleb Popov <arrowd@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: What to use in place of abstract unix sockets? Message-ID: <CALH631kYAz%2B_=p6VUhxzx0tz8eox804PCK5A9POxQkZTdThZCQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--0000000000001139f805d29cd169 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hello hackers. I'm porting a software that does the following things on Linux: 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. >From 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. 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. Thanks in advance. --0000000000001139f805d29cd169--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CALH631kYAz%2B_=p6VUhxzx0tz8eox804PCK5A9POxQkZTdThZCQ>