Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 21 Oct 2000 17:23:10 +1000 | From | Cefiar <> | Subject | Re: bind() - Old/Current behaviour - Change? |
| |
At 03:02 PM 20/10/00 +0800, Andrey Savochkin wrote: >On Thu, Oct 19, 2000 at 09:52:30PM +1000, Cefiar wrote: >[snip] > > ... what is really necessary, > > which is to simply not allow the programs to bind to the addresses in the > > first place. Unfortunately to implement this sort of thing in god knows > how > > many user space programs looked like too much re-inventing of the wheel. >[snip] > >I think that it's a good idea. >The only question is whether such lists and conditions, and such a big degree >of flexibility belongs to the kernel space. >Isn't it better just to pass almost all bind() calls through a special daemon >for systems which want non-trivial bind policies?
I'm happy with that - still produces the required effect and removes bloat from kernel space. Also means it should be easy to revert to default behavior.
My original idea was basically a wrapper much like the way chroot works. Being able to lock things in some state that was more appropriate for the program in question. I know that when I set up named/bind on a 2.2 system I set up with a chroot environment, every time an interface changed state, we had to restart named so that it could re-bind to the addresses. Being able to lock the state of those addresses in some way would be brilliant, wether it's the default or not.
-- -=[ Stuart Young (Aka Cefiar) ]=------------------------------- | http://amarok.glasswings.com.au/ | cefiar1@optushome.com.au | ---------------------------------------------------------------
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |