On Monday 16 July 2007 02:25:37 pm Julian Elischer wrote:
Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2007-Jul-15 16:51:38 -0700, Julian Elischer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
void
closefrom(int lowfd)
{
fcntl(lowfd, F_CLOSEM, NULL);
}
what on earth would that achieve?
(as opposed to just a simple
On 2007-Jul-15 16:51:38 -0700, Julian Elischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
void
closefrom(int lowfd)
{
fcntl(lowfd, F_CLOSEM, NULL);
}
what on earth would that achieve?
(as opposed to just a simple syscall)
The only benefit I can think of is minimising the number of syscalls.
Is there any
Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2007-Jul-15 16:51:38 -0700, Julian Elischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
void
closefrom(int lowfd)
{
fcntl(lowfd, F_CLOSEM, NULL);
}
what on earth would that achieve?
(as opposed to just a simple syscall)
The only benefit I can think of is minimising the number of
* Julian Elischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ed Schouten wrote:
Wouldn't it be better to just implement it through fcntl() and implement
closefrom() in libc?
that's a possibility but I personally thing the huge difference in
efficiency
makes it worth putting it in the kernel.
Quite a few
Ed Schouten wrote:
* Julian Elischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ed Schouten wrote:
Wouldn't it be better to just implement it through fcntl() and implement
closefrom() in libc?
that's a possibility but I personally thing the huge difference in
efficiency
makes it worth putting it in the
* Julian Elischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ed Schouten wrote:
Woops! Sorry for responding this late, but it looks like I didn't
explain myself good enough. Sorry. :) To rephrase myself:
Wouldn't it be better to just implement fcntl(..., F_CLOSEM, ...) in the
kernel and make closefrom() a
We added it basically because doing all the junk described in
previous postings in this thread in userland is a ridiculously huge
eyesore that doesn't scale and doesn't make sense when 5 minutes of
programming nets you a shiny new system call which does it all for you.
If you
Matthew Dillon wrote:
We added it basically because doing all the junk described in
previous postings in this thread in userland is a ridiculously huge
eyesore that doesn't scale and doesn't make sense when 5 minutes of
programming nets you a shiny new system call which does it
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 10:53:02AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 11:46:14PM -0400, Ighighi wrote:
Calling F_MAXFD everytime we close a file descriptor would be heavy
having too much fd's.
On the other hand, it wouldn't make much a difference
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 11:46:14PM -0400, Ighighi wrote:
Calling F_MAXFD everytime we close a file descriptor would be heavy
having too much fd's.
On the other hand, it wouldn't make much a difference to just start from
getdtablesize() - 1.
I fully agree. That is the second version of
Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 11:46:14PM -0400, Ighighi wrote:
Calling F_MAXFD everytime we close a file descriptor would be heavy
having too much fd's.
On the other hand, it wouldn't make much a difference to just start from
getdtablesize() - 1.
I fully agree. That is
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, LI Xin wrote:
To RW: I have not found a suitable audit event for this, should I create a
new event?
BTW, I can add an AUE_CLOSEFROM event to OpenBSM. This may require a little
work by event consumers who will now need to know about an additional source
of implicit
Robert Watson wrote:
The Solaris implementation appears to implement two strategies:
(1) If procfs is mounted, list the fd directory to get a list of open fds,
then close those by number.
(2) If procfs is not mounted, query the number of open fds using the
resource
limit
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 15:00:21 +0800
From: LI Xin [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: add closefrom() call
To: Robert Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: FreeBSD Hackers freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Jul 6, 2007, at 9:57 AM, Julian Elischer wrote:
Robert Watson wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Julian Elischer wrote:
Ed Schouten wrote:
* LI Xin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is my implementation for FreeBSD. Some difference between
my and DragonFly's implementation:
- closefrom(-1)
Hi,
Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 08:27:49PM -0400, Ighighi Ighighi wrote:
The closefrom() call, available in Solaris, is present in NetBSD since
version 3.0.
It is implemented with the F_CLOSEM fcntl() available since version 2.0.
You could also add a system call like
* LI Xin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is my implementation for FreeBSD. Some difference between my and
DragonFly's implementation:
- closefrom(-1) would be no-op on DragonFly, my version would close all
open files (From my understanding of OpenSolaris's userland
implementation, this is
LI Xin delphij at delphij.net wrote:
Here is my implementation for FreeBSD. Some difference between my and
DragonFly's implementation:
- closefrom(-1) would be no-op on DragonFly, my version would close all
open files (From my understanding of OpenSolaris's userland
implementation, this is
On Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 12:50:17PM +0100, Robert Watson wrote:
Solaris side-steps this issue by simply auditing the individual close()
system calls. My preference would be that we implement this in user space
also, which would likewise generate a series of audit events, one for each
system
On Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 06:18:14PM +0800, LI Xin wrote:
- closefrom(-1) would be no-op on DragonFly, my version would close all
open files (From my understanding of OpenSolaris's userland
implementation, this is Solaris's behavior).
I think this is a bad idea as -1 is generally an invalid
On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 08:27:49PM -0400, Ighighi Ighighi wrote:
It is implemented with the F_CLOSEM fcntl() available since version 2.0.
I don't like the fcntl(2) approach as it applies actions to more than
the passed in fd. That feels like an interface abuse.
Joerg
Ed Schouten wrote:
* LI Xin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is my implementation for FreeBSD. Some difference between my and
DragonFly's implementation:
- closefrom(-1) would be no-op on DragonFly, my version would close all
open files (From my understanding of OpenSolaris's userland
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Julian Elischer wrote:
Ed Schouten wrote:
* LI Xin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is my implementation for FreeBSD. Some difference between my and
DragonFly's implementation:
- closefrom(-1) would be no-op on DragonFly, my version would close all
open files (From my
Robert Watson wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Julian Elischer wrote:
Ed Schouten wrote:
* LI Xin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is my implementation for FreeBSD. Some difference between my
and DragonFly's implementation:
- closefrom(-1) would be no-op on DragonFly, my version would close
all
Ighighi Ighighi wrote:
The closefrom() call, available in Solaris, is present in NetBSD since
version 3.0.
It is implemented with the F_CLOSEM fcntl() available since version 2.0.
I think it might worth an effort (sendmail and perhaps some part of JDK
uses it IIRC), but I do not want to rush
On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 08:27:49PM -0400, Ighighi Ighighi wrote:
The closefrom() call, available in Solaris, is present in NetBSD since
version 3.0.
It is implemented with the F_CLOSEM fcntl() available since version 2.0.
You could also add a system call like it was done in DragonFly. That
26 matches
Mail list logo
