Re: why not remove AF_LOCAL sockets on last close?

[Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost>]

On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 09:32:40AM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 02:51:45PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:55:51PM -0400, Thor Simon wrote:
> > > Can anyone tell me why, exactly, we shouldn't remove bound AF_LOCAL
> > > sockets from the filesystem on last close?
> > 
> > If you want to do that, wouldn't it be easier to just go the Linux route
> > and move them into a separate (virtual) namespace completely?
> 
> Linux does that?  I ran this test program on a Linux system and got a
> socket in the filesystem and the same results.

According to the documentation in the net, if the path starts with a NUL
byte, it is going into the abstract namespace. I'm not sure if that is
the smartest approach, but that's what they invented.

Joerg