From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/5106 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Re: Resolver overhaul concepts Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 13:41:51 -0400 Message-ID: <20140510174151.GO26358@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20140504124238.GA24010@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <536665C5.7060302@skarnet.org> <20140504162437.GA27258@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <536D7B08.8030403@mit.edu> <20140510023653.GN26358@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <536DF0D6.3030405@skarnet.org> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1399743735 31524 80.91.229.3 (10 May 2014 17:42:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 17:42:15 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-5111-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sat May 10 19:42:09 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WjBHi-0004Vi-1m for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Sat, 10 May 2014 19:42:06 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 9282 invoked by uid 550); 10 May 2014 17:42:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 9271 invoked from network); 10 May 2014 17:42:04 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <536DF0D6.3030405@skarnet.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Original-Sender: Rich Felker Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:5106 Archived-At: On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 10:26:46AM +0100, Laurent Bercot wrote: > On 10/05/2014 03:36, Rich Felker wrote: > >doesn't let you do anything you can't already do with AF_INET[6] and > >udp. > > Nit: it does. (User authentication, fd passing.) But I agree that > this is not needed for name resolution and would gratuitously add > muslisms. I meant in the context of being a resolver back-end, not anything else. For this purpose there is no use in fd passing, and if you really want authentication, iptables (or whatever its successor is) can tag local packets by the originating uid/pid/etc. and provide access controls roughly equivalent to what AF_UNIX could provide (however it seems unlikely that this would be useful either). Rich