Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:21:03 +0200 From: Vlad Galu <dudu@dudu.ro> To: xorquewasp@googlemail.com Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: UNIX domain sockets on nullfs still broken? Message-ID: <ad79ad6b0911300721x50c35917n659d53e74145a4b1@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20091130150127.GA82188@logik.internal.network> References: <20091130142950.GA86528@logik.internal.network> <hf0lle$5mk$1@ger.gmane.org> <20091130150127.GA82188@logik.internal.network>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 5:01 PM, <xorquewasp@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 2009-11-30 15:43:01, Ivan Voras wrote:
>> xorquewasp@googlemail.com wrote:
>> > =A076030 initial thread STRU =A0struct sockaddr { AF_LOCAL, /tmp/jack-=
11001/default/jack_0 }
>> > =A076030 initial thread NAMI =A0"/tmp/jack-11001/default/jack_0"
>> > =A076030 initial thread RET =A0 connect -1 errno 61 Connection refused
>>
>> I would expect to see this result from the jail since it's obviously a
>> Bad Idea, but does it work from the same (host) machine without the jail
>> in between (i.e. just the nullfs, no jails)?
>
> Hm, yes, you're right. It does work without a jail involved.
>
> What's the sane solution, then, when the only method of communication
> is unix domain sockets?
For redirecting a connection to a UNIX socket to a remote host:port,
there's net/unix2tcp. Perhaps you can patch it to go the other way
around as well?
>
> xw
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org=
"
>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ad79ad6b0911300721x50c35917n659d53e74145a4b1>