On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 20:23 +0200, lu...@proxima.alt.za wrote: > > i haven't even seen what i think is a compelling > > argument for sendfd yet you're trying to argue > > for second-order problems with a particular > > application of sendfd. > > > Sendfd() seems to me a somewhat more carefully controlled version of > /srv. As it stands, the additional features of sendfd() involving > security are not present in /srv,
Guys, lets stop talking about security issues. I don't think there are any that need to be worried about. Nathaniel has identified a couple of real issues with the current implementation of /srv so lets focus on those. > so one can make a case for providing sendfd() > or a moral equivalent ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ incoming... ;-) (Sorry, couldn't resit) Thanks, Roman.
