Re: IPC bugs / FIFOs

From: staringer <staringer@mtu-net.ru>
Subject: Re: IPC bugs / FIFOs
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 18:16:10 +0300

Next Article (by Date): Re: IPC bugs / FIFOs Amon Ott
Previous Article (by Date): Re: IPC bugs / FIFOs Amon Ott
Top of Thread: Re: IPC bugs / FIFOs Amon Ott
Next in Thread: Re: IPC bugs / FIFOs Amon Ott
Articles sorted by: [Date] [Author] [Subject]

Hello Amon!
Amon Ott wrote:

> On Mit, 13 Dez 2000 staringer wrote:
> > Amon Ott wrote:
> >
> > > On Sam, 09 Dez 2000 Stanislav Ievlev wrote:
> > > > There are problems with some IPC objects:
> > >
> > > OK, FIFOs where hacked in without much reflection. Functionally, they belong to
> > > the IPC object family, but their system representation is as files.
> > >
> > > What do you prefer:
> > >
> > > - FIFOs are treated as FILE objects
> > > - FIFOs are treated as IPC objects
> > >
> >
> > Well, I prefer FIFOs as IPC objects.
>
> After thinking about it:
>
> - FIFOs are no files
> - the RSBAC data structures for files already exist and could be used
> - IPC-fifo would have to be created with device sets, because FIFOs are device
> dependent
>
> So I suggest a new target type T_FIFO, which could be kept in the same data
> structures as T_FILE and T_DIR. The decisions, syscalls and tools for files and
> dirs can easily be extended for FIFOs, so the whole infrastructure is almost
> there. FIFOs could even inherit attributes, ACLs etc. from the DIR they are in.
>
> What do you think?
>

T_FIFO ... it's very interesting. But what about link (may be logical) T_FIFO with
T_IPC?

---------------
With best regards
Stanislav Ievlev.
<inger@linux.ru.net>

-
To unsubscribe from the rsbac list, send a mail to
majordomo@rsbac.org with
unsubscribe rsbac
as single line in the body.

Go to Compuniverse LWGate Home Page.