From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20091205081032.GJ8759@nipl.net>
References: <45bb8a0916edcb2ee86883ebeea8945e@brasstown.quanstro.net>
	<20091205081032.GJ8759@nipl.net>
Date: Sat,  5 Dec 2009 12:44:35 +0100
Message-ID: <8ccc8ba40912050344od31827by29522b75a51892c6@mail.gmail.com>
From: Francisco J Ballesteros <nemo@lsub.org>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [9fans] ideas for helpful system io functions
Topicbox-Message-UUID: a82e420e-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

I guess the question is, is this the easy way to address the problem
you try to solve? Or is it a solution seeking for a problem?
You could just forward the data to the new process. Is there a
performance problem here?

If you insist on 'unreading', you could just put a front-end process that
keeps per-request data so that your external process can ask the
front-end for all the data again.

Or I'm missing something.

On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Sam Watkins <sam@nipl.net> wrote:
>> the standard way of passing file descriptors is by fork/exec.
>> this allows security is handled by the normal means.
>
> Erik/others, would you please give some feedback on my idea (a join call =
which
> connects two fds together and disowns them from the process). =C2=A0Passi=
ng fds
> around does not solve the same problems and has nothing to do with what I
> suggested.
>
> Perhaps this list is not the right place to air "new" or different ideas
> related to the implementation of operating systems?
>
> Sam
>
>