On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 01:24:03PM -0700, Matt Dillon wrote:
>
> :Because `all telnet really does is connect to sockets' is patently
> :false. Check out the nearly 100 RFCs detailing the TELNET protocol.
> :Almost none of these make much sense to do over UNIX domain sockets
> :[1].
>
>
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 12:56:28PM -0600, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> As a more general solution I have an inetd that groks AF_UNIX. You
> would have to add chroot/jail support to it, though, and some would
> argue that that's making inetd a bit featureful.
I dunno. Somehow it makes more sens
>
> :
> :On Wed, 23 May 2001, Matt Dillon wrote:
> :
> :> Nice one! I'm going to be using this all over the place myself.
> :
> :I am missing something here. Is there a practical use for this? :)
> :
> :Jamie
>
> Many programs these days use unix-domain sockets as a rendezvous
> fo
Matt Dillon wrote:
> :Matt> But unix-domain sockets are
> :Matt> extremely useful in all manner of applications
> :
> :They're also anywhere from 10-400% faster than PF_INET for connections
> :to the localhost (it varies a lot between different UNIX
> :implementations).
> :
> :--lyndon
>
:Matt> But unix-domain sockets are
:Matt> extremely useful in all manner of applications
:
:They're also anywhere from 10-400% faster than PF_INET for connections
:to the localhost (it varies a lot between different UNIX
:implementations).
:
:--lyndon
What, you don't think we should b
> "Matt" == Matt Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Matt> But unix-domain sockets are
Matt> extremely useful in all manner of applications
They're also anywhere from 10-400% faster than PF_INET for connections
to the localhost (it varies a lot between different UNIX
implementations).
:Because `all telnet really does is connect to sockets' is patently
:false. Check out the nearly 100 RFCs detailing the TELNET protocol.
:Almost none of these make much sense to do over UNIX domain sockets
:[1].
Huh? Oh yah, *that* protocol. Telnet only does that if the server
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, James Howa
rd writes:
>On Thu, 24 May 2001, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
>
>> As a more general solution I have an inetd that groks AF_UNIX. You
>> would have to add chroot/jail support to it, though, and some would
>> argue that that's making inetd a bit featureful.
>
On Wed 2001-05-23 (22:08), Jacques A. Vidrine wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 08:10:20PM -0400, James Howard wrote:
> > I am missing something here. Is there a practical use for this? :)
>
> You are not the only one. I can appreciate the `neat' factor, but I
> cringed at the commit. It s
> "Jacques" == Jacques A Vidrine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jacques> [1] I think it was Peter who did mention one application
Jacques> of this (NVT over AF_UNIX), which would be for
Jacques> communication with `jails'. This is pretty specialized,
Jacques> and requires a teln
> "Gordon" == Gordon Tetlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Gordon> It depends on how you look at it. If you see telnet as a
Gordon> network client, then you cringe at this
PF_UNIX is a network protocol on par with PF_INET, or any other
PF_*.
This thread is getting silly. Let's give it
[cc: trimmed]
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 11:10:10AM -0700, Gordon Tetlow wrote:
> It depends on how you look at it. If you see telnet as a network client,
> then you cringe at this (I did initially). But when you think about it,
> all telnet really does is connect to sockets, so why not extend its
>
On Wed, 23 May 2001, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote:
> You are not the only one. I can appreciate the `neat' factor, but I
> cringed at the commit. It seems like functionality that would be
> better put in a separate utility (or port even). It's not like you'd
> ever want to run the NVT protocol ove
On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 08:10:20PM -0400, James Howard wrote:
> I am missing something here. Is there a practical use for this? :)
You are not the only one. I can appreciate the `neat' factor, but I
cringed at the commit. It seems like functionality that would be
better put in a separat
:
:On Wed, 23 May 2001, Matt Dillon wrote:
:
:> Nice one! I'm going to be using this all over the place myself.
:
:I am missing something here. Is there a practical use for this? :)
:
:Jamie
Many programs these days use unix-domain sockets as a rendezvous
for IPC between processes.
:
:Looking at the patch, is it safe to assume that if there's a '/' in a
:hostname, it MUST be a AF_UNIX socket? If so, wouldn't a strchr(hostp,
:'/') be better than 'hostp[0] == '/''? This way one can use relative paths
:as well, not just absolute ones.
:
:--
:[ Joseph Mallett<[EMAIL
On Wed, 23 May 2001, Matt Dillon wrote:
> Nice one! I'm going to be using this all over the place myself.
I am missing something here. Is there a practical use for this? :)
Jamie
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Looking at the patch, is it safe to assume that if there's a '/' in a
hostname, it MUST be a AF_UNIX socket? If so, wouldn't a strchr(hostp,
'/') be better than 'hostp[0] == '/''? This way one can use relative paths
as well, not just absolute ones.
--
[ Joseph Mallett<[EMAIL PROTECTED
I've committed the patch, changing -/ to -u (note: you don't need the
option at all if you specify a path beginning with '/', as per Lyndon's
original code), to current (both non-crypto and crypto versions). I
will MFC it to stable in three days.
Nice one! I'm going to be u
:> ftp://orthanc.ab.ca/lyndon/freebsd/telnet.AF_UNIX.patch
:>
:> If someone with commit priv's thinks this is worth including, be
:> my guest.
:
:This is really cool, can you submit it as a PR?
:
:--
:-Alfred Perlstein [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Don't bother, I'll commit it right now as soon as
:A few months back I taught telnet about named sockets. We've found this
:very useful for testing things like IPC channels in our software
:(e.g. telnet /var/run/lmtp). I've put the (-STABLE) patches up at:
:
: ftp://orthanc.ab.ca/lyndon/freebsd/telnet.AF_UNIX.patch
:
:If someone with commit priv'
* Lyndon Nerenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010523 18:22] wrote:
> A few months back I taught telnet about named sockets. We've found this
> very useful for testing things like IPC channels in our software
> (e.g. telnet /var/run/lmtp). I've put the (-STABLE) patches up at:
>
> ftp://orthanc.ab.ca/l
22 matches
Mail list logo
