On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 07:26:28PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > On that whole subject...
> >
> > Do we need a Unix domain socket equivalent to openat()?
>
> I don't think so. The name is just a file system indexing trick, it's not
> really the socket proper. It's little more than "ascii string with
> permissions attached"
That's overstating the case. As I understand it the address is resolved
by a pathname lookup like any other--it can follow symlinks, is relative
to the current working directory and filesystem namespace, etc. So a
unix-domain socket equivalent to openat() would at least be
well-defined--whether it's needed or not, I don't know.
OpenVZ Forum
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
