In message <1e149bf9-4347-d924-8942-803b8e4dd...@schokola.de>, Nils Goroll writ
es:
>WFM, but one thing:
>
>> 1. We will use bogo-IP numbers for client UDS connections
>
>As long as we get VCL access to the accept socket name, we should not need the
>uds socket path. But we should have a w
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 3:47 PM, Nils Goroll wrote:
> WFM, but one thing:
>
>> 1. We will use bogo-IP numbers for client UDS connections
>
> As long as we get VCL access to the accept socket name, we should not need the
> uds socket path. But we should have a way to differentiate between
> /untrus
WFM, but one thing:
> 1. We will use bogo-IP numbers for client UDS connections
As long as we get VCL access to the accept socket name, we should not need the
uds socket path. But we should have a way to differentiate between
/untrusted/external.socket and /highly/secure/internal.socket
Nils
P.
As you all know I've been agonizing about Unix Domain Sockets support,
but I've, finally, made up my mind, and came down on the side of
keeping them special, rather than generalize.
I'm going to explain the thinking in this email, for posterity and
so that you can squarely and fairly pin the blame
