On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 09:19:03 -0400 Thor Simon <t...@coyotepoint.com> wrote:
> I think this is (always has been) a considerable blind spot on the part > of BSD partisans. Sure, we're happy to gripe about persistent SysV IPC > objects every time we have to remember how to use ipcrm, but bound AF_UNIX > sockets have the same issue, and we just ignore it. I don't think most people have trouble with SysV IPC, considering those persistent resources were often used by short lived, but frequently used commands/processes, utilising both the permissions and persistent resources features (and NetBSD allows the admin to set the limit of the various SysV resources with accuracy); admitedly we can now do the same using files, mmap and advisory locks, though. But I agree that if leaving the sockets around permits no interesting feature whatsoever (i.e. it doesn't even serve for SO_REUSEADDR), it very well could be a design or implementation bug, even if common software already explicitely unlink AF_LOCAL sockets to account for this issue... -- Matt
