On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 09:32:40AM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote: > On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 02:51:45PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:55:51PM -0400, Thor Simon wrote: > > > Can anyone tell me why, exactly, we shouldn't remove bound AF_LOCAL > > > sockets from the filesystem on last close? > > > > If you want to do that, wouldn't it be easier to just go the Linux route > > and move them into a separate (virtual) namespace completely? > > Linux does that? I ran this test program on a Linux system and got a > socket in the filesystem and the same results.
According to the documentation in the net, if the path starts with a NUL byte, it is going into the abstract namespace. I'm not sure if that is the smartest approach, but that's what they invented. Joerg
