linux-kernel - Re: Memory sharing question

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 24 Feb 2007 13:52:52 +0000
From:	Alan <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	"Stephen Dolan" <stedolan@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Memory sharing question

> with the address as the "start" parameter and MAP_FIXED. However, that
> tends to fail, and MAP_FIXED can have annoying side-effects (killing
> off other mappings).

MAP_FIXED requires you know in advance a good place to put the memory,
which isn't too hard with some planning but does get fairly platform
specific and requires good knowledge.

> The point of all this is that I want to pass a large, complex (full of
> pointers) data structure to a different process, and I don't want the
> overhead of serialising it down a socket and then parsing it at the
> other end (the data structure's pretty big, and the other process
> won't need it all). Is this possible?

You can also just use relative pointers, which is actually pretty fast on
most modern processors
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/