On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 15:11:50 -0400 "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Explicitly for Linux yes - this is not generally true of the AF_UNIX socket domain and even the permissions aspect isn't guaranteed to be supported on some BSD environments ! The name is however just a proxy for the socket itself. You don't even get a device node in the usual sense or the same inode in the file system space. Alan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
