[lkml]   [2000]   [Oct]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: bind() - Old/Current behaviour - Change?

On Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 05:23:10PM +1000, Cefiar wrote:
> 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

You may wish to look at
I designed it a long time ago to support programs like bind which are not
trusted to run with high privilages but still need privileged ports.

> 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.

What do you mean under "lock the state"?

Best regards
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 12:41    [W:0.091 / U:0.680 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site