Mail Archives: cygwin-developers/2001/05/31/08:46:25
Hi!
Thursday, 31 May, 2001 Corinna Vinschen vinschen AT redhat DOT com wrote:
CV> I would like to revive the discussion about a sort of server process
CV> providing critical services to Cygwin processes.
CV> The reason is that I found another good example how such a server
CV> could be used: s-uid and s-gid applications and files.
looks reasonable. not that i particularly miss suid bits, but i'd
probably use it extensively if/when it'll be implemented.
CV> So, as far as I can see, we have already three reasons to
CV> invent that server process:
CV> - Secure handles
CV> - IPC
CV> - s-uid, s-gid facility
CV> I think we will find more later on.
CV> So, how is the current "mood" related to such a server process
CV> and how keen are people to work on that?
CV> Has somebody a suggestion how to interact with that server process?
CV> Sockets? Named pipes? Smoke signals?
I'd try to range them from the different points of view:
(first is better, last is worse)
Security:
1. Named pipes.
2. Shared memory (?).
3. Sockets.
4. Smoke signals.
Performance (including both latency and throughput):
(*** this is pure speculation, some testing required ***)
1. Named pipes. Shared memory. (not sure which is better)
2. Sockets.
3. Smoke signals.
Cross-platform support:
1. Smoke signals. :)
2. Shared memory.
3. Sockets. (don't forget, user may want to use cygwin on machine with
no networking installed)
4. Named pipes (nt/2000 only)
a communication between client and server is restricted to local host
only, so, i suppose, we can take "mixed" approach -- use named pipes
on nt/2000 and shared memory on w9x.
but first, i'd try to do some performance testing.
Egor. mailto:deo AT logos-m DOT ru ICQ 5165414 FidoNet 2:5020/496.19
- Raw text -