Re: IPC bugs / FIFOs

From: Amon Ott <ao@rsbac.org>
Subject: Re: IPC bugs / FIFOs
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 11:02:26 +0100

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

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?

Amon.
-
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.