Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 16:16:41 -0500 (CDT) From: Joe Greco <jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com> To: julian@current1.whistle.com (Julian Elischer) Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: please comment on this: Message-ID: <199608062116.QAA01260@brasil.moneng.mei.com> In-Reply-To: <199608061954.MAA12611@current1.whistle.com> from "Julian Elischer" at Aug 6, 96 12:54:09 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Here at whistle, we want to run different services on different interfaces, so > here are some patches to allow inetd to bind to an address. > > does anyone have any complaints about this feature? > is it in any way a security hole? > > If I don't hear any problems or if people like it, > I'd like to add this to our sources.. That is one way to do it :-) This is a little related, mostly unrelated though.. mostly a crazy idea about a slightly different way to implement something a little similar. I had a little fun when 2.0R first came out. I made a "chrooted" environment that could "run" on its own, worked very nicely. My goal: "virtual servers" on a grand scale.. to be able to have multiple virtual machines hosted on a single physical machine that appeared to be, from the net, for all intents and purposes separate machines. Of course the easy way to do this was to modify libc's networking layers to catch "INADDR_ANY" in all the common places and replace it with a specific IP address, based on which virtual server I was currently "on". It actually worked but I never used it for anything :-/ ... JG
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199608062116.QAA01260>