Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2021 14:50:08 +0700 From: Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net> To: Gleb Popov <arrowd@freebsd.org>, freebsd-hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: What to use in place of abstract unix sockets? Message-ID: <9ca80eac-e24a-802d-fae0-6a2146c4a825@grosbein.net> 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
08.12.2021 13:43, Gleb Popov wrote: > 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. If they are parent/child, you could try using socketpair().
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9ca80eac-e24a-802d-fae0-6a2146c4a825>