Re: Updates to /bin/bash

From: Trond Myklebust (
Date: Fri May 05 2000 - 02:14:00 EST

>>>>> " " == Matthew Vanecek <> writes:

>> On 4 May 2000, Trond Myklebust wrote:
>> >Not good. If I'm running /bin/bash, and somebody on the server
>> >updates /bin/bash, then I don't want to reboot my
>> >machine. With the above

> You wouldn't have to reboot. Why would you think you need to
> reboot? This isn't Winbloze, for god's sake. All it means is
> that new bash processes will use the updated version, while old
> processes would still be using the old version--it's loaded in

NO. This behaviour is exactly what Andreas patch would break. New
processes would get a mixture of old and new versions because the page
cache itself would be out of sync.

> memory, remember? Hell, you can even overwrite the libc on a
> running system.

That is only true of files on local storage. We are discussing NFS,
which is a stateless file system.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 07 2000 - 21:00:16 EST