On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 01:47:54PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 09:49:16PM +0200, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > > i actually know very little about named unix pipes. but afaict, > > yes, _unix_ named pipes are a local-only concept. > > > > and i advise against using unix pipes to implement this proposal, > > which is to implement *nt* named pipes, which are, as you > > can see from the OS/2 and NT developer SDK documentation, are > > totally different from un ix named pipes. > > Okay, maybe we should come up with another name besides named pipes. > It is obviously confusing the hell out of us Unix people. This is > obviously something other than the named pipes most of us are familiar > with.
yesplease! *out-of-my-depth here* > I guess my attitude is, "show us the code." But, please don't call > it named pipes. =) Remote pipe or something. Once we see the code, > then we can provide more concrete feedback. okay. okay. well, there are two examples. unix_sock.c as used in http://virgule.sourceforge.net. client-side usage is in mod_xvl/, and server-side is in xvl/ but that is a cut-down version of the code in TNG, it does local-only. you can see that it uses unix domain sockets, and that there isn't any security, which i _am_ going to have to re-add, because i now use the code to obtain user-passwords, in mod_auth_xvl. that's a simple matter, but it will need auditing - by an experienced unix systems developer, which i _know_ i am not, and not afraid to say so. > If you already have a Unix-based implementation of remote named pipes > (seems that it is in Samba - but be aware of the GPL/BSD issue - ASF TNG only. > can't use code derived from Samba unless *you* are the copyright > holder), which i am. > I'd guess that it wouldn't be too hard on your end to at > least post a patch/code (within APR framework) that illustrates what > you are talking about. ack. well, a _quick_ one is simple, you are right. about... 1 days' work? a more complete one? with a 'clean' way to transfer security context? and the code _does_ need a security audit, which i even print out this fact into the log files :) :) about a week. > This code might have some potential usefulness for stuff we are doing > here (it could save us the overhead of implementing/using RPC). So, > I'd definitely look at it - and depending upon how it works, I might > even use it, too. =) -- justin coool :) luke
