Re: What to use in place of abstract unix sockets?

> On 10 Dec 2021, at 18:23, Gleb Popov <arrowd@freebsd.org> wrote:
> > What can I do to make this software work for FreeBSD? Simply using regular
> > UDS instead of abstract ones doesn't work for obvious reasons - the
> > "client" can't find the socket file.
> 
> If the parent knows where the child will chroot it could create a unix domain socket under that directory somewhere.
> 
> Same problem as above - there should be a single socket on the erver side. 

I just did a quick test with nc and you can hard link unix domain sockets so you could bind it in the parent then hard link it for each child.

Seems pretty kludgy though :)

--
Daniel O'Connor
"The nice thing about standards is that there
are so many of them to choose from."
 -- Andrew Tanenbaum