From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Mart=EDn_Ferrari?= Subject: Re: Question about netns & AF_UNIX Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 11:19:52 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87d3whb4jr.fsf@caffeine.danplanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: netdev , Mathieu Lacage To: Dan Smith Return-path: Received: from mail-vw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.212.46]:48533 "EHLO mail-vw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755889Ab0EaJTz convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 May 2010 05:19:55 -0400 Received: by vws9 with SMTP id 9so467246vws.19 for ; Mon, 31 May 2010 02:19:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87d3whb4jr.fsf@caffeine.danplanet.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi, On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 20:08, Dan Smith wrote: > If you are in different network namespaces, the binding of UNIX > sockets is also kept separate. =A0Even though the filesystem is share= d, > this seems to make the most sense to me. To me it was the opposite, I thought natural that UNIX sockets would continue to work, at least when they are bound to a filesystem entry. Also it is a nice and clean way to communicate across namespaces without assuming lots of things about the network configuration. >=A0Named pipes on the > filesystem would still be shared, by the way. Yes, today I've tried with named pipes and worked. It's just that they aren't as nice as UNIX sockets :) Thanks. --=20 Mart=EDn Ferrari