Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 19:15:54 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Marcin Cieslak <saper@SYSTEM.PL> Cc: Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org>, Alexander Leidinger <netchild@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 105906 for review Message-ID: <20060928191350.L76119@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <451A7C35.8050209@SYSTEM.PL> References: <200609091856.k89Iu9lN090213@repoman.freebsd.org> <20060928083623.GA1297@FreeBSD.czest.pl> <451A7C35.8050209@SYSTEM.PL>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006, Marcin Cieslak wrote: > It may happen that implementing delivery of the process ID of the other side > of the socket - feature not available AFAIK in the FreeBSD right now - will > impose on us much deeper dive into internal socket structures. The notion of "The process ID on the other side of a socket" is nonsensical. There may be zero, one, or many processes hooked up to a socket. The situations in which you can point clearly at a process or credential are the process/credential that called connect (if any), and the process/credential that sent a message. This is the distinction between LOCAL_CREDS and SCM_CREDS, FYI. Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060928191350.L76119>