Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 2 Mar 2001 13:58:53 +0100 | From | David Weinehall <> | Subject | Re: Hashing and directories |
| |
On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 10:04:10AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > > * userland issues (what, you thought that limits on the > > > > command size will go away?) > > > > > > Last I checked, the command line size limit wasn't a userland issue, but > > > rather a limit of the kernel exec(). This might have changed. > > > > I _really_ don't want to trust the ability of shell to deal with long > > command lines. I also don't like the failure modes with history expansion > > causing OOM, etc. > > > > AFAICS right now we hit the kernel limit first, but I really doubt that > > raising said limit is a good idea. > > I am running with 2MB limit right now. I doubt 2MB will lead to OOM.
You know, with a box with 4MB of RAM (or indeed 2MB, which should still be possible on a Linux-system), a 2MB command-line is a very effective DoS :^)
> > xargs is there for purpose... > > xargs is very ugly. I want to rm 12*. Just plain "rm 12*". *Not* "find > . -name "12*" | xargs rm, which has terrible issues with files names > > "xyzzy" > "bla" > "xyzzy bla" > "12 xyzzy bla" > > ! > > I do not want to deal with xargs. Xargs was made to workaround > limitation at command line size (and is broken in itself). Now we have > hardware that can handle bigger commandlines just fine, xargs should > be killed.
/David Weinehall _ _ // David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /> Northern lights wander \\ // Project MCA Linux hacker // Dance across the winter sky // \> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ </ Full colour fire </ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |