Re: [9fans] Potential race in syspipe()

[Dan Cross <cross@math.psu.edu>]

In article <Pine.GSO.4.10.10008132154210.194-100000@weyl.math.psu.edu> you write:
>	I realize very well that changing that would be painful - the best
>strategy is probably to ask for space at the very beginning and keep the
>number of pending allocations (i.e. make sure that newfd() never fails).
>Yuck. I'll probably try to see what this approach gives on our side, but
>I'm not sure that it will be any better than our current code (right now
>we are using an equivalent of falloc(9); since we keep a bitmap of
>allocated descriptors we can see if dup2() tries to stick its nose into
>the pending slot). newfd() equivalent had been tried some time ago, but
>back then it was rejected due to problems with creat(2).
>	At least you don't have to deal with bloody SCM_RIGHTS
>file-passing...

So why is RedHat interested in Plan 9?  :-)

btw- BSD has had rfork() since at least '96, if not longer.  It
was just never used.  Scott Schwartz and I were at one point going
to look into make it more robust, but never bothered.  Unix sucks
now days anyway (damn, I'm starting to sound like Oleg....)

	- Dan C.