From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Cross Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 15:42:00 -0400 Message-Id: <200008151942.PAA04608@augusta.math.psu.edu> To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] Potential race in syspipe() In-Reply-To: References: <200008140147.VAA29002@cse.psu.edu> Topicbox-Message-UUID: fb351476-eac8-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 In article 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.