[lkml]   [1999]   [Jun]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: A few questions.....

On Thu, 24 Jun 1999 wrote:

> Well after doing a bit of thinking on the topic of a portal fs, and I
> recall somebody mentioning a sockfs. Would there be any interest in
> implementing the entire socket namespace symbolicly in a virtual
> filesytem?

Plan9 does it. With our VFS it is *wrong*. Really wrong. They have
user-available mount() and different processes may have independent
namespaces. So opening connection <=> mounting. That makes sense. Letting
the thing hang around the system-wide namespace doesn't.

> Or if you wanted it to do the higher level protocol handling like http or
> ftp.
> /sockets/outgoing/ip/tcp/http/

Even more obvious candidate for per-process namespace.

> As for the binding something like
> /sockets/incoming/ip/tcp/inaddr-any/25
> Then if say the admin of the system only wanted user foo to be able to
> bind to a socket you could do something like
> chown foo /sockets/incoming/ip/tcp/inaddr-any/80
> Then if people really wanted to they could do away with the BSD socket()
> API(evil grin ;) Not that anybody ever would but.....

Erm... I'ld beg to differ. You are introducing the heck of overhead that
way. And BSD socket API is wider than files one. Ability to use sendto()
is *good*.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:52    [W:0.172 / U:3.780 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site