Hello,
On Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 05:23:10PM +1000, Cefiar wrote:
>
> I'm happy with that - still produces the required effect and removes bloat
> from kernel space. Also means it should be easy to revert to default behavior.
>
> My original idea was basically a wrapper much like the way chroot works.
> Being able to lock things in some state that was more appropriate for the
> program in question. I know that when I set up named/bind on a 2.2 system I
> set up with a chroot environment, every time an interface changed state, we
You may wish to look at
ftp://ftp.nc.orc.ru/pub/Linux/people/saw/bindd
I designed it a long time ago to support programs like bind which are not
trusted to run with high privilages but still need privileged ports.
> had to restart named so that it could re-bind to the addresses. Being able
> to lock the state of those addresses in some way would be brilliant, wether
> it's the default or not.
What do you mean under "lock the state"?
Best regards
Andrey
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 23 2000 - 21:00:20 EST