Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 25 Nov 1999 13:04:47 +0000 (GMT) | From | Tigran Aivazian <> | Subject | Re: [patch-2.3.29] bugfix for pipe(2) system call. |
| |
You agree with what? If I don't understand what David suggested, I don't understand what you agree with.
If David suggested to write -1's to userspace's fd[2] that means overhead in non-failing case which is totally unacceptable. (it's the same as doing verify_area(), in fact it is cheaper to keep the kernel lock over copy_to_user() and close the descriptors if failed than doing that).
If David suggested to write -1's to local kernel fd[2] then I don't see how it makes any difference.
Regards, Tigran.
On Thu, 25 Nov 1999, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
> In message <19991125085058Z155970-26989+89@vger.rutgers.edu>, David Howells > wri > tes: > +----- > | I'd say there's a lot easier way of checking your pipe problem: pre-initialis > | e > | both elements of the array to -1 or something. It's only two int's, so the > | performance penalty will be minimal. > +--->8 > > I'd agree except that I suspect pipe() is supposed to leave the memory > unchanged if anything goes wrong. > > -- > brandon s. allbery os/2,linux,solaris,perl allbery@kf8nh.apk.net > system administrator kthkrb,heimdal,gnome,rt allbery@ece.cmu.edu > carnegie mellon / electrical and computer engineering kf8nh > We are Linux. Resistance is an indication that you missed the point. > > >
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |