[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1446073709.7476.93.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 16:08:29 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, stephen@...workplumber.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
dhowells@...hat.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Bug 106241] New: shutdown(3)/close(3) behaviour is incorrect
for sockets in accept(3)
On Wed, 2015-10-28 at 22:33 +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 02:44:28PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> > Well, all this complexity goes away with a O_FD_FASTALLOC /
> > SOCK_FD_FASTALLOC bit in various fd allocations, which specifically
> > tells the kernel we do not care getting the lowest possible fd as POSIX
> > mandates.
>
> ... which won't do a damn thing for existing userland.
For the userland that need +5,000,000 socket, I can tell you they are
using this flag as soon they are aware it exists ;)
>
> > Except for legacy stuff and stdin/stdout/stderr games, I really doubt
> > lot of applications absolutely rely on the POSIX thing...
>
> We obviously can't turn that into default behaviour, though. BTW, what
> distribution do you have in mind for those random descriptors? Uniform
> on [0,INT_MAX] is a bad idea for obvious reasons - you'll blow the
> memory footprint pretty soon...
Simply [0 , fdt->max_fds] is working well in most cases.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists