On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 07:08:07PM +0900, Jari Sundell wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:38 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 06:28:17PM +0900, Jari Sundell wrote:
> >> A while ago whitelisting of some pathnames were made for controller
> >> communication using unix sockets, howeve
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:38 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 06:28:17PM +0900, Jari Sundell wrote:
>> A while ago whitelisting of some pathnames were made for controller
>> communication using unix sockets, however these are tied to the
>> bridge/switch name. Afaict, that makes it d
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 06:28:17PM +0900, Jari Sundell wrote:
> A while ago whitelisting of some pathnames were made for controller
> communication using unix sockets, however these are tied to the
> bridge/switch name. Afaict, that makes it difficult for a single
> controller to receive connection
Hi,
A while ago whitelisting of some pathnames were made for controller
communication using unix sockets, however these are tied to the
bridge/switch name. Afaict, that makes it difficult for a single
controller to receive connections from multiple switches.
Would it be possible to relax the whit
