Hello!
> And then it becomes obvious that count is not needed, it is always 1
> or 0; ie. only threads waiting on same fd in same struct files_struct
> must be woken. My patch
The patch is wrong, Paul. It does work with poll(), but it is plain luck.
If poll() were more optimal, it would fail a
Alexander Viro wrote:
> Erm... "Limit reached" != "crash a machine"... Root has some reserve.
Then things have improved. I've crashed machines before this way...
-- Jamie
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Plea
> So can you open enough files to crash a machine this way then?
> (Because the _fd_ limit is never reached, but the open file limit may be).
You would eventually hit the system wide limit yes. There are lots fo ways to
do that. If it worries you get the bean counter patches and help work on them
On Thu, 31 Aug 2000, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Alan Cox wrote:
> > > close doesn't close. This would be a ``bug'', Linus.
> >
> > Nope. The fd can be closed and a new one opened while the poll sleeps on the
> > existing one. The current code is compliant
>
> So can you open enough files to crash
Alan Cox wrote:
> > close doesn't close. This would be a ``bug'', Linus.
>
> Nope. The fd can be closed and a new one opened while the poll sleeps on the
> existing one. The current code is compliant
So can you open enough files to crash a machine this way then?
(Because the _fd_ limit is never
5 matches
Mail list logo
