linux-kernel - Re: PROPOSAL: extend pipe() to support NULL argument.

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

Date:	Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:28:36 +0200
From:	Albert ARIBAUD <albert.aribaud@...e.fr>
To:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:	Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>,
	Amerigo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: extend pipe() to support NULL argument.

Changli Gao a écrit :

> Yea, in many cases, max fd number must be enlarged. More fds means
> more memory. Although memory is cheaper today, we have to do our best
> to save money.

Sorry for interrupting, but I don't see how pipe could return a single fd, 
considering there are two (partly) independent ends, each being read (resp. 
written) in their own time, and an fd has only one "current read/write 
position" IIUC.

If the proposal is to have two independent positions (one for reads and one 
for writes) for a single fd, then I am not sure the gain in the number of 
fds used is worth the loss in the increased size of the fd structure.

Am I missing something?

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.
--
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/