o SD_LISTEN_FDS_START
> * fail otherwise
>
> Here is the example of use_fd
> https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/blob/master/tests/test_setsockopt.cpp#L86
>
> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Ale Strooisma
> wrote:
> > Hit send to quickly:
> >
> > There indeed seems t
I suppose that is
insurmountable?
Kind regards, Ale Strooisma
On 26 May 2016 at 12:30, Ale Strooisma
wrote:
> Sorry, I am not familiar with umask. As far as I understand, setting the
> umask determines what permissions new files created by the user have.
> However, in this case
what permissions a file created by it gets?
On 26 May 2016 at 11:01, Arnaud Loonstra wrote:
> I don't think zmq deals with permissions? The OS does. Shouldn't you be
> using a umask?
> What's your umask set at?
>
> Rg,
>
> Arnaud
>
> On 2016-05-26 1
Rg,
>
> Arnaud
> On 2016-05-25 17:30, Ale Strooisma wrote:
>
>> the previous update might be incorrect. Now it seems that I cant bind
>> to a socket created by systemd (I got something like "address already
>> in use"). If I connect to it instead with my server
make sense to add this as a zmq_setsockopt option called
ZMQ_IPC_UMASK, or something like that?
Kind regards,
Ale Strooisma
On 25 May 2016 at 19:34, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> Hi Ale,
>
> If you have systemd managing your socket with a socket unit, it will
> create and bind it for y
em to reply...
Anyway, all in all it would be highly preferable to be able to set with
which permissions the socket is created. Currently I am working around this
issue by calling chmod after binding to the socket.
On 25 May 2016 at 14:50, Ale Strooisma
wrote:
> Okay, a bit of an update
Okay, a bit of an update: I tried ensuring the socket was available using
systemd, but when the program that binds to the port runs, it resets the
privileges.
On 25 May 2016 at 12:32, Ale Strooisma
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> For my program, I am using the ipc protocol. The unix socket used
sure the
socket is in place with the right privileges before running any of my
programs? The latter option would be rather unpractical of course.
Kind regards,
Ale Strooisma
___
zeromq-dev mailing list
zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
http://lists.zeromq.org
the message.
>
> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Ale Strooisma <
> a.strooi...@student.utwente.nl> wrote:
>
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> when receiving a message I get this error/warning:
>>
>> Assertion failed: check () (msg.cpp:220)
>>
return -1;
}
...
I don't really know what I should be looking for here. Could somebody give
some hints?
Kind regards,
Ale Strooisma
___
zeromq-dev mailing list
zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
e the fix here:
> > https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/blob/master/src/signaler.cpp#L515
> >
> > So I guess you will have to better define what you mean by light-weight
> > before one can decide it.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 6:10 AM Ale Strooisma
> >
don't
really know whether they are good.
The reason I am asking this is that, when I started with ZeroMQ, I was
under the assumption that this was true, but I can't really find anything
to back it up. Which I could well use to motivate why I chose to use ZeroMQ.
Kind regards,
Ale
those did not output for the first few messages. Therefore I
thought they would not be related.
I strongly doubt this will help anyone, because I really don't see how
these issues were related.
On 19 April 2016 at 17:32, c wrote:
> Ale Strooisma writes:
>
> > I fixed another p
I fixed another problem in my code, and now this is not happening
anymore... I am baffled as to how this could be related.
Thanks for your response and sorry for wasting your time.
Kind regards,
Ale Strooisma
On 19 April 2016 at 11:14, Kevin Sapper wrote:
> Hi Ale,
>
> could y
ge is sent from the same process,
either on an ipc or inproc connection.
Kind regards,
Ale Strooisma
___
zeromq-dev mailing list
zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
15 matches
Mail list logo
