| To: | Glenn Fowler <gsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: kernel bug in socketpair() |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 23 Jul 2003 10:31:35 -0700 |
| Cc: | gsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, dgk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <200307231724.NAA90957@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <200307231428.KAA15254@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030723074615.25eea776.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <200307231656.MAA69129@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030723100043.18d5b025.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <200307231724.NAA90957@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 13:24:36 -0400 (EDT) Glenn Fowler <gsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > /dev/fd/N is the underlying mechanism for implementing the bash and ksh > > cmd-1 <(cmd-2 ...) ... <(cmd-n ...) > Interesting. I looked at the bash code, and it uses pipes with /dev/fd/N, and for /dev/fd/N which are pipes the open should work under Linux. This is what David Korn said in his original report. I guess the part that is left is the fchmod() issue which exists because one inode is used to implement both sides of the pipe under Linux. Was the idea to, since fchmod() on pipes modified both sides, to use UNIX domain sockets to implement this? And that's how you discovered the /dev/fd/N failure for sockets? Another idea is to use named unix sockets. Can that be sufficient to solve your dilemma? |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: kernel bug in socketpair(), Glenn Fowler |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: kernel bug in socketpair(), Alan Cox |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: kernel bug in socketpair(), Glenn Fowler |
| Next by Thread: | Re: kernel bug in socketpair(), Glenn Fowler |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |