Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Message-ID: <00ca01c23c82$bae26750$6132bc3e@BABEL> From: "Conrad Scott" To: References: <20020804195150 DOT GA3381 AT redhat DOT com> <61668562061 DOT 20020805141450 AT logos-m DOT ru> <005d01c23c7f$415d6c70$6132bc3e AT BABEL> Subject: Re: 1.3.13? Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 14:19:29 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Quick addenda to the previous email: *) One reason I changed the UNIX domain socket handshake to avoid setting and waiting for events was that I hoped to be able to extend the protocol to the connectionless use of UNIX domain sockets (cygwin provides no security here at present). Any solution based on WSAConnect/WSAAccept obviously wouldn't work for that, so we'd need another solution there -- a single solution to both connection-full and -less sockets would be good but I can't think of one right now. *) My assumption was, from Egor's revelation, that we can't control the visibility of an event (or whatever) object, i.e. we can control what a process can do with an object, via its security settings, but we can't control it's visibility the same way. I don't know the NT security model at all well, but I don't see a way to do this. // Conrad