Subject: Re: PF_UNIX in getaddrinfo(3)
To: Mario Kemper <>
From: Johan Danielsson <>
List: tech-net
Date: 02/17/2002 15:46:05
Mario Kemper <> writes:

> Is there a specific reason for this?  Does PF_LOCAL violate some
> standard or is it simply not yet implemented?

It does not have a well defined behaviour. What socket name does
service "foo" correspond to in the PF_LOCAL domain? I think it's been
disabled in later glibc because of security concerns.