Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2021 10:38:19 +1030 From: Daniel O'Connor via freebsd-hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> To: Gleb Popov <arrowd@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: What to use in place of abstract unix sockets? Message-ID: <F0BE714E-E25B-4A49-AA6E-B0E906374446@dons.net.au> 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
> On 8 Dec 2021, at 17:13, Gleb Popov <arrowd@freebsd.org> wrote: > I'm porting a software that does the following things on Linux: >=20 > 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. >=20 > =46rom 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. >=20 > 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. If the parent knows where the child will chroot it could create a unix = domain socket under that directory somewhere. -- 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?F0BE714E-E25B-4A49-AA6E-B0E906374446>