Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!think!mintaka!bloom-beacon!athena.mit.edu!jik
From: jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: socket -> UID
Message-ID: <1990Jan18.032813.18123@athena.mit.edu>
Date: 18 Jan 90 03:28:13 GMT
References: <20784@stealth.acf.nyu.edu> <832@unipas.fmi.uni-passau.de> <1990Jan15.053647.24388@athena.mit.edu>
Sender: news@athena.mit.edu (News system)
Reply-To: jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 26

In article <20784@stealth.acf.nyu.edu>, brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu writes:
> In article <1990Jan15.053647.24388@athena.mit.edu> jik@athena.mit.edu
> (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes:
> >   This can't be done.  An Internet domain socket doesn't have any
UID or GID
> > information associated with it;
> 
> It should. The Internet inherited that administrative flaw from the Arpanet.

  Not convinced.  The problem with assigning a UID and GID to a network
socket is
that not all machines connected to the network have a concept of UID's
and GID's.
It's quite common nowadays to see IBM PC's or Macs connected to an ethernet and
given a network address; what UID and GID should be associated with socket
connections to those machines.

  No, I would tend to agree with the decision not to associate UID and
GID with a
socket, simply because a UID's and GID's are Unix things, and the Internet is
certainly not restricted to Unix machines.

Jonathan Kamens			              USnail:
MIT Project Athena				11 Ashford Terrace
jik@Athena.MIT.EDU				Allston, MA  02134
Office: 617-253-8495			      Home: 617-782-0710