linux-kernel - Re: [OT] Re: The vi editor causes brain damage

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]

Message-ID:  <m37inr1zae.fsf@ursa.amorsen.dk>
Date:	Sun, 19 Aug 2007 14:31:21 +0200
From:	Benny Amorsen <benny+usenet@...rsen.dk>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject:  Re: [OT] Re: The vi editor causes brain damage

>>>>> "WT" == Willy Tarreau <w@....eu> writes:

WT> Under unix, the shell resolves "*" and passes the 10000 file names
WT> to the "rm" command. Now, execve() may fail because 10000 names in
WT> arguments can require too much memory. That's why find and xargs
WT> were invented!

It would be very handy if the argument memory space was expanded.
Many years ago I hit the limit regularly on Solaris, and going to
Linux with its comparatively large limit was a joy. Now it happens to
me quite often on Linux as well.

What are the primary problems with expanding it? It used to be
swappable memory, is that still the case?

/Benny

-
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/