[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140510174151.GO26358@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 13:41:51 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: Resolver overhaul concepts
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 10:26:46AM +0100, Laurent Bercot wrote:
> On 10/05/2014 03:36, Rich Felker wrote:
> >doesn't let you do anything you can't already do with AF_INET[6] and
> >udp.
>
> Nit: it does. (User authentication, fd passing.) But I agree that
> this is not needed for name resolution and would gratuitously add
> muslisms.
I meant in the context of being a resolver back-end, not anything
else. For this purpose there is no use in fd passing, and if you
really want authentication, iptables (or whatever its successor is)
can tag local packets by the originating uid/pid/etc. and provide
access controls roughly equivalent to what AF_UNIX could provide
(however it seems unlikely that this would be useful either).
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
