> BTW; just an idea: in the case of inetd(8), wouldn't it be more > simple and logical, in this very case, to add a "cmdif" (cmd > interface) builtin?
Simpler and more logical than what? In any case, the major issue I would have with it is the lack of authentication. But that's so obvious that I assume you would be doing something like requiring a password - or doing it only for AF_LOCAL sockets and using LOCAL_PEEREID. (This is pretty close to what most of my pidconn servers do - they use the pidconn analog of LOCAL_PEEREID to verify that the client is either root or the same UID the server is running as.) The biggest difference I see between this and using signals to provoke these actions is the target namespace: filesystem names for AF_LOCAL or process IDs for signals. /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mo...@rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
