From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S271197AbTGWSxP (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jul 2003 14:53:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S271214AbTGWSxO (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jul 2003 14:53:14 -0400 Received: from pizda.ninka.net ([216.101.162.242]:58004 "EHLO pizda.ninka.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S271197AbTGWSwJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jul 2003 14:52:09 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:04:57 -0700 From: "David S. Miller" To: Glenn Fowler Cc: gsf@research.att.com, dgk@research.att.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: kernel bug in socketpair() Message-Id: <20030723120457.206dc02d.davem@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <200307231854.OAA90112@raptor.research.att.com> References: <200307231428.KAA15254@raptor.research.att.com> <20030723074615.25eea776.davem@redhat.com> <200307231656.MAA69129@raptor.research.att.com> <20030723100043.18d5b025.davem@redhat.com> <200307231724.NAA90957@raptor.research.att.com> <20030723103135.3eac4cd2.davem@redhat.com> <200307231814.OAA74344@raptor.research.att.com> <20030723112307.5b8ae55c.davem@redhat.com> <200307231854.OAA90112@raptor.research.att.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.2 (GTK+ 1.2.6; sparc-unknown-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 14:54:49 -0400 (EDT) Glenn Fowler wrote: > On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 11:23:07 -0700 David S. Miller wrote: > > On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 14:14:57 -0400 (EDT) > > Glenn Fowler wrote: > > > > named sockets seem a little heavyweight for this application > > > I think it'll be cheaper than unnamed unix sockets and > > groveling in /proc/*/fd/ > > > And even if there is a minor performance issue, you'll more than get > > that back due to the portability gain. :-) > > named unix sockets reside in the fs namespace, no? Right. > so they must be linked to a dir before use and unlinked after use > the unlink after use would be particularly tricky for the parent process > implementing > cmd <(cmd ...) ... Hmmm... true. I honestly don't know what to suggest you use, sorry :( Is bash totally broken because of all this? Or does the problem only trigger when using (cmd) subprocesses in a certain way?