Re: Remote pid with SOCK_DGRAM local socket

[Thor Lancelot Simon <tls%panix.com@localhost>]

On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 10:52:26AM +0200, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
> Matthew Mondor <mm_lists%pulsar-zone.net@localhost> wrote:
> 
> > Would this still matter for a service such as syslogd?
> > How about the UID?  Because when I submitted the diff that's mostly
> > what I needed for datagrams.
> 
> I need the PID so that perfused(8) can kill(2) the remote process if it
> ignored FUSE_DESTROY.

Can you arrange for there to be a parent-child relationship between
perfused and the glusterfs daemon?

Without that this sort of thing is fraught with danger.  No matter how
clever you are, sooner or later someone will find yet another sneaky
way to trick you into either trusting or killing the wrong process.  I
have the scars to prove it.

Thor