Hi Tobi, On Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 11:36:11PM +0200, Tobias Oetiker wrote: > Today Sebastian Harl wrote: > > When talking to a local daemon (thru a UNIX socket), relative path names are > > resolved to absolute path names to allow for transparent integration into > > existing solutions (as requested by Tobi). > > > > However, when talking to a remote daemon, absolute path names are not > > allowed, > > since path name translation is done by the server (relative to the base > > directory). > > am I reading the code correctly? You do not > rewrite a request if it is sent remotely, but you do not complain > if a remote request uses an absolute path either ?
I do complain if a remote request uses an absolute path:
+ if (*path == '/') /* absolute path */
+ {
+ if (! is_unix)
/* i.e. this is a remote request */
+ {
+ rrd_set_error ("absolute path names not allowed when talking "
+ "to a remote daemon");
+ return (NULL);
+ }
+ /* else: nothing to do */
+ }
Later, if get_path() returns NULL, the rrdc_*() functions return with an
error.
A relative path name is sent to a remote daemon unmodified.
Cheers,
Sebastian
--
Sebastian "tokkee" Harl +++ GnuPG-ID: 0x8501C7FC +++ http://tokkee.org/
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ rrd-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.oetiker.ch/cgi-bin/listinfo/rrd-developers
