RFC: rpcss skeleton prototype #2

Ove Kaaven ovehk at ping.uio.no
Tue Nov 5 06:43:31 CST 2002

On Mon, 4 Nov 2002, Greg Turner wrote:

> On Monday 04 November 2002 05:04 pm, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> > Note that to be a "real, fully functional RPC server", it would have
> > to bind to a privileged port and such, providing all the DCE RPC
> > daemon services that should live on that port. I'm not sure I would
> > trust a complex Winelib app to run as root, listening on an open
> > network port. It'd probably be much better to let the user run a real
> > DCE RPC daemon (like freedce's) as root, and just have Wine's rpcss
> > communicate with it as necessary to update this real daemon's
> > registrations. Then several (Unix) users could run RPC services on
> > the same host, too.
> >
> > (Doesn't solve the problem with remote activation, though)
> good point, I hadn't given that much thought.  It's an interesting 
> problem.  I guess we'll have to deal with it sooner or later, but, 
> lucky for us, probably later than sooner :)  
> Also, aren't some of these ports often locked up by samba?  Perhaps a 
> "real solution" will eventually have to entail a native unix RPC 
> routing mechanism which runs as root, and decides whether an incoming 
> RPC goes to samba, wine-as-user, dce-rpc, or some other target, based 
> on lord-knows-what criteria...

Hmm, that may not be necessary. If Samba provides a RPC registration
service then we wouldn't need another DCE RPC daemon like freedce's, we
could just use Samba as our registration service (and if uses the port but
doesn't have that feature yet, someone might be able to convince them to
add it). It would also appear easier to plug remote activation into Samba
(i.e. make Samba start "wine myservice.exe" when that service is requested
by remote host) than into any other daemon, if it is ever needed. It'd
probably be worth looking into when the time comes.

More information about the wine-devel mailing list