Re: Add support infrastructure for Named Pipe

On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 7:06 AM, Jeff Layton <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:55:57 -0500
> Steve French <[email protected]> wrote:

> Shoving code into the kernel to work around licensing problems is not a
> good solution. All of those problems can equally be solved by a daemon
> that runs in userspace.

Not sure I would describe adding two or three SMB calls "shoving code into
the kernel" especially as this in kernel in most other OS and fits with
the kernel layer.   Remember that no one is suggesting adding DCOM
and RPC to kernel - just the ability to do a couple missing primitives
(e.g. transact and setnmpstate) which makes the user space code eaiser.

> I'm not of the opinion that an extra connection to the server is a huge
> deal. At least, not a big enough problem to warrant doing this in
> kernel rather than in userspace.

It seems insane to creating a dependency on a userspace daemon
which has to hang around just to avoid adding a couple of wire requests
(especially since these transact calls aren't really written in userspace
this way).  Even with  userspace IPC to a GPL daemon I have heard concerns
that that is frowned upon (IANAL).

> With what you have so far, WINE will need to mount the IPC$
> share in order to use it.

I am not suggesting that we give WINE elevated priv.


-- 
Thanks,

Steve