[zeromq-dev] [RFC] Passing file descriptors as endpoints in `zmq_connect` or `zmq_bind`

Ian Barber ian.barber at gmail.com
Sun Jul 28 18:08:30 CEST 2013


Sounds like a reasonable proposal - it would be a new handler along the
lines of ipc_ or tcp_, but simpler with the checks as you describe. Would
certainly be interesting to try out!

Ian


On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Ciprian Dorin Craciun <
ciprian.craciun at gmail.com> wrote:

>     Hello all!  I wanted to ask this for some time, but now I'm more
> motivated by the fact that I actually need to use such a feature.
> (Thus the motivation could go beyond just "asking", because I could
> also provide the necessary patches.)
>
>
>     == Summary ==
>
>     Thus, as the subject says, is there any solution that would allow
> a ZeroMQ socket to use an already existing file descriptor, in a
> "connected" state, for example as an argument for `zmq_connect`,
> instead of a textual endpoint.  And the same question for a file
> descriptor, in an "accepting" state, say as an argument for
> `zmq_bind`.
>
>     I've searched for this topic in the mailing lists and the
> documentation, but I didn't find such a feature.  Thus if my guess is
> correct and there isn't such a solution already, would the community
> accept patches that provide such a feature?  (In the details below I
> try to start a discussion in such a direction.)
>
>
>     == Details ==
>
>     Having this feature would fit nicely in the following use-cases,
> which are quite often encountered in the Linux world:
>
>
>     (A) (for file descriptor in `zmq_bind`)  There is a trend for
> daemons made to work on Linux, heavily pushed by systemd, which
> (preferably) requires that systemd (or another manager) is the one
> responsible to create and bind the listening socket, and then on the
> first connection spawns the daemon and passes it the listening
> socket's file descriptor (thus obtaining activation on demand of
> daemons).  (Please note that I don't want to create a flame-war around
> systemd, as it usually happens when it is referenced in public mailing
> lists.  It seems most distributions push it as the new SysV init
> replacement, thus good or bad, it would be nice to be "compatible"
> with it.)
>
>     (A.1)  A second, less likely use case, is when the user wants more
> "control" over the various knobs of the underlying socket, such as the
> newly introduced `SO_REUSEPORT` which allows multiple applications to
> listen at the same time on the same TCP or UDP port (bound to the same
> IP address).
>
>
>     (B) (for file descriptor in `zmq_connect`)  The second use case
> would be for a "master-slave" (or "dispatcher-worker") architecture
> where the parent process (i.e. the "master") before spawning a child
> creates an pair of UNIX sockets (by using `socketpair`) and uses one
> for itself and passes the other to the child.
>
>     (B.1) Another valid use-case would be the one in which the
> application does it's own socket accepting, like via `inetd` systems.
> One could imagine to exchange some messages to authenticate the other
> party, and then just pass the socket to ZeroMQ.  (Of course this can't
> replace SSL or equivalent.)
>
>     (B.2) Going further with this, one could implement an in-process
> `stunnel`-like solution that terminates the SSL connection (this is
> easier than implementing message-based encryption), thus having a more
> "conservative" solution for the SSL problem in the context of ZeroMQ.
> (Although this is only a potential use-case and I don't want to focus
> on the SSL issue in this thread.)
>
>
>     The bottom line in all cases would be decoupling the way in which
> the transport endpoint is created or obtained (i.e. the file
> descriptor) from its actual usage (i.e. the part where ZeroMQ is
> best).
>
>
>     As technical details, in case such a feature doesn't already
> exist, I would mention the following "requirements", which as said I
> would be willing to provide patches for:
>
>     * such a solution shouldn't require any change to the ZeroMQ
> library except the part of "registering" these descriptors in the
> system;  (thus only short-cutting the creation, and "connection" of
> the sockets;)
>
>     * the user should take care that the file descriptor is usable by
> the library as expected (i.e. it's a "connected" socket for the
> `zmq_connect` case, or a "listening" socket for the `zmq_bind`, and it
> is of the right family (i.e. TCP or UNIX) or type (i.e. stream),
> etc.);
>
>     * reconnects won't work, and once the socket is closed by the
> other party it's removed from ZeroMQ without trying to reconnect;
>
>
>     As a potential interface, I would guess that adding a new
> transport, say `fd:<number>`, to both `zmq_connect` or `zmq_bind`
> would suffice.  Or if the implementation details differ from TCP and
> UNIX, and this knowledge is required, one could add different
> transports, say `tcp-fd:<number>`, or `ipc-fd:<number>`, etc.
>
>
>     Sorry for the lengthy email, but I wanted to be as clear as
> possible with regard of my proposed enhancement and its impacts on the
> existing ZeroMQ library.
>
>     Thanks,
>     Ciprian.
> _______________________________________________
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/attachments/20130728/d1aedb11/attachment.htm>


More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list