Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: NR_OPEN vs OPEN_MAX vs RLIMIT_NOFILE, and a glibc bug? | From | Andreas Schwab <> | Date | 29 Mar 1999 11:43:39 +0200 |
| |
Olaf Titz <olaf@bigred.inka.de> writes:
|> > Both getdtablesize and RLIMIT_NOFILE are only relevant for newly opened |> > descriptors. See f.ex. the manual page on SunOS4: |> > |> > The call getdtablesize() returns the current value of the |> > soft limit component of the RLIMIT_NOFILE resource limit. |> > This resource limit governs the maximum value allowable as |> > the index of a newly created descriptor. |> |> This implies that the common usage of getdtablesize() to find out the |> highest numbered fd is wrong to begin with, since a process could open |> (or inherit!) a fd and subsequently lower RLIMIT_NOFILE. It also |> suggests it is not possible to find out the highest numbered fd at |> all. (And using the _soft_ limit makes it sounds yet more questionable |> IMHO.)
Well, this is rather unusual, but you seem to be right.
|> Net result: apart from using /proc (which is Linux-specific) there is |> no reliable way to close all open fds and the traditional way using |> the loop like in ciped is bogus. Right?
Yes, but apart from csh and some daemons, who needs to do a blanket close anyway?
-- Andreas Schwab "And now for something schwab@issan.cs.uni-dortmund.de completely different" schwab@gnu.org
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |