Thus spake David S. Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > I'll say it again, if you have to make changes to apps/servers the > feature does not make any sense. It must operate transparently or > not at all. There once was a socket file system which solved exactly this problem in a nice and obvious way. If you wanted to allow user joe to bind to port 80, you just do "chown joe /socks/80". Whatever happened to that neat idea? If it was under /proc, I would be happy. Felix - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: bind() allowed to non-local addresses Horst von Brand
- Re: bind() allowed to non-local addresses Jamie Lokier
- Re: bind() allowed to non-local addresses H. Peter Anvin
- Re: bind() allowed to non-local addresses Matt Peterson
- Re: bind() allowed to non-local addresses David S. Miller
- Re: bind() allowed to non-local addresses Matt Peterson
- Re: bind() allowed to non-local addresses David S. Miller
- Re: bind() allowed to non-local address... Matt Peterson
- Re: bind() allowed to non-local address... Andi Kleen
- Re: bind() allowed to non-local address... David S. Miller
- Re: bind() allowed to non-local address... Felix von Leitner
- Re: bind() allowed to non-local address... David S. Miller
- Re: bind() allowed to non-local address... Christoph Hellwig
- Re: bind() allowed to non-local address... Andi Kleen
- Re: bind() allowed to non-local address... David S. Miller
- Re: bind() allowed to non-local address... Andi Kleen
- Re: bind() allowed to non-local address... Matt Peterson
- Re: bind() allowed to non-local address... Andi Kleen
- Re: bind() allowed to non-local address... David S. Miller
- Re: bind() allowed to non-local address... Andi Kleen
- Re: bind() allowed to non-local address... David Woodhouse