On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 11:42:53PM +0000, James Youngman wrote: > On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 01:36:52AM +0300, Dmitry V. Levin wrote: > > > You can have a look at my own slocate I wrote several years ago > > (based on glibc's fts and GNU locate's frencode) which demonstrates > > this approach: > > ftp://ftp.altlinux.org/pub/people/ldv/slocate/slocate-0.2.8.tar.bz2 > > Interesting. I like the code (well, except for lists.c). How did you > come to write your own version rather than use the locate which forms > part of GNU findutils or the other 'slocate' package?
First reason was security: the find part needs to be privileged, and I had no other way to make it running non-root and still be able to traverse a file hierarchy. Why I need to make it running non-root? Because updatedb is subject for passive and active attacks. Second reason was performance: the code based on glibc's fts + GNU locate's frencode worked faster than GNU locate and much faster than other 'slocate' package. > I'm not asking 'what was wrong with GNU locate?'. The architecture. As I said, with standard linux kernel find cannot be hardened without hacks, and multiprocess model also adds performance penalty. > It's more that I'm > asking why you didn't use the other slocate. Other slocate is crap. It is even less secure than GNU locate which contains no "s" in the name. :) > One more wheel and we'll have enough for a car :) Indeed! :) -- ldv
pgpkfWjlFoxm0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Bug-findutils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-findutils
