subject:"\"\\\[patch\\\] UNIX sockets support for lwresd\""

Re: [patch] UNIX sockets support for lwresd

2012-01-17 Thread Danny Mayer

On 1/17/2012 5:57 AM, Ben Laurie wrote: > > > On 17 January 2012 04:31, Danny Mayer > wrote: > > This breaks O/S's that don't support Unix sockets, specifically Windows. > Please explain why Unix domain sockets are more effective and secure > rather than using

Re: [patch] UNIX sockets support for lwresd

2012-01-16 Thread Danny Mayer

This really belongs in bind-workers rather than bind-users. See also below. On 1/16/2012 9:19 AM, Ilya Bakulin wrote: > Hi list, > I'm working on Capsicum security framework [1] for the FreeBSD Project. > While implementing sandbox mode for some applications like tcpdump, we > have noticed that sa

[patch] UNIX sockets support for lwresd

2012-01-16 Thread Ilya Bakulin

Hi list, I'm working on Capsicum security framework [1] for the FreeBSD Project. While implementing sandbox mode for some applications like tcpdump, we have noticed that sandboxed applications are no longer able to resolve DNS names. This happens because each DNS resolving is done by making a conne