netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: kernel bug in socketpair()

To: davem@xxxxxxxxxx, gsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: kernel bug in socketpair()
From: Glenn Fowler <gsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 14:54:49 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: dgk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Organization: AT&T Labs Research
References: <200307231428.KAA15254@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030723074615.25eea776.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <200307231656.MAA69129@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030723100043.18d5b025.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <200307231724.NAA90957@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030723103135.3eac4cd2.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <200307231814.OAA74344@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030723112307.5b8ae55c.davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 11:23:07 -0700 David S. Miller wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 14:14:57 -0400 (EDT)
> Glenn Fowler <gsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > named sockets seem a little heavyweight for this application

> I think it'll be cheaper than unnamed unix sockets and
> groveling in /proc/*/fd/

> And even if there is a minor performance issue, you'll more than get
> that back due to the portability gain. :-)

named unix sockets reside in the fs namespace, no?
so they must be linked to a dir before use and unlinked after use
the unlink after use would be particularly tricky for the parent process
implementing
        cmd <(cmd ...) ...


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>