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. --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
