Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2021 19:38:53 +1030 From: Daniel O'Connor via freebsd-hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> To: Gleb Popov <arrowd@freebsd.org> Cc: Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net>, freebsd-hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: What to use in place of abstract unix sockets? Message-ID: <58874E76-8541-46BF-A197-C984D6A869DF@dons.net.au> In-Reply-To: <CALH631m8P_NG3nTZ1JQ2hhZMTrAMuuGjS8Ahz_qDMu1bFDCzkw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CALH631kYAz%2B_=p6VUhxzx0tz8eox804PCK5A9POxQkZTdThZCQ@mail.gmail.com> <F0BE714E-E25B-4A49-AA6E-B0E906374446@dons.net.au> <CALH631m8P_NG3nTZ1JQ2hhZMTrAMuuGjS8Ahz_qDMu1bFDCzkw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 10 Dec 2021, at 18:23, Gleb Popov <arrowd@freebsd.org> wrote: > > 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. >=20 > If the parent knows where the child will chroot it could create a unix = domain socket under that directory somewhere. >=20 > Same problem as above - there should be a single socket on the erver = side.=20 I just did a quick test with nc and you can hard link unix domain = sockets so you could bind it in the parent then hard link it for each = child. Seems pretty kludgy though :) -- Daniel O'Connor "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Andrew Tanenbaum
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?58874E76-8541-46BF-A197-C984D6A869DF>