[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "here strings" and tmpfiles
From: |
konsolebox |
Subject: |
Re: "here strings" and tmpfiles |
Date: |
Thu, 11 Apr 2019 04:27:22 +0800 |
On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 10:01 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
> A real solution for this issue involves getting rid of the temporary file
> all together. Since we're talking about a bash string, it's already in
> memory. Why not just fork() if the write() will block? A simple way would be
> to always fork(). A fancy way would be to set NONBLOCK mode, see if it
> returns EAGAIN, and only fork() if the write would block. Either way seem
> basically fine, with the critical part being that the temporary file is
> totally gone from the equation.
Except you now added forking.
--
konsolebox
- Re: "here strings" and tmpfiles, (continued)
- Re: "here strings" and tmpfiles, Daniel Kahn Gillmor, 2019/04/11
- Re: "here strings" and tmpfiles, Chet Ramey, 2019/04/11
- Re: "here strings" and tmpfiles, Jason A. Donenfeld, 2019/04/11
- Re: "here strings" and tmpfiles, Jason A. Donenfeld, 2019/04/11
- Re: "here strings" and tmpfiles, Jason A. Donenfeld, 2019/04/11
- Re: "here strings" and tmpfiles, Chet Ramey, 2019/04/11
- Re: "here strings" and tmpfiles, Greg Wooledge, 2019/04/11
- Re: "here strings" and tmpfiles, Chet Ramey, 2019/04/11
- Re: "here strings" and tmpfiles, Robert Elz, 2019/04/11
- Re: "here strings" and tmpfiles, Chet Ramey, 2019/04/11
- Re: "here strings" and tmpfiles,
konsolebox <=
Re: "here strings" and tmpfiles, konsolebox, 2019/04/09
Re: "here strings" and tmpfiles, konsolebox, 2019/04/09