Are mailslots implemented?
andi at rhlx01.fht-esslingen.de
Wed Mar 16 03:25:57 CST 2005
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 09:53:15AM +0100, Marcus Meissner wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 04:51:19PM -0500, Kuba Ober wrote:
> > On wtorek 15 marzec 2005 05:39 am, Francois Gouget wrote:
> > > On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Kuba Ober wrote:
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > For reception, I'll bind UDP port 138 (netbios-dgm) if it's not already
> > > > bound, to receive the mailslots coming in.
> > >
> > > Note that on Unix you'll need to be root to bind to port 138 (<1024).
> > > Just wanted to mention that, just in case.
> > Then probably we can have a tiny suid-executable that's just a reflector:
> > redirects all incoming packets to some other port, and vice versa.
> Use a iptables firewall rule.
That's a nice idea, but I'm not sure it's actually feasible, since without
further Wine infrastructure the user would have to add this firewall rule
on his own.
I think we need some kind of suid root daemon soon, because there are
several aspects that might require that: this very problem, further Samba
integration, the ping implementation in Wine (which requires root on Linux),
maybe even some syscalls or I/O communication in Linux, some filesystem
interaction (but that one will need less and less root permission, I guess)
and probably some more.
Such a daemon would then be able to add this firewall rule, too, of course.
OR maybe do some kind of sudo trickery directly at Wine installation to
be able to use that whenever we require that. That way we might not even need
such a specific Wine root daemon, which should be a good thing.
(after all we should attempt to make use of existing, established and
well-working infrastructure as much as possible instead of inventing new
specific, non-general crap).
More information about the wine-devel