If you think the shm stuff is bad, look at the sem stuff. With those you
have to trap all exits from your code and hope some silly admin doesn't
kill -9 (to be fair, this is the same for pthread semaphores, for good
reason in that case). Not to mention that you can't restrict sem's to a
parent-child relationship, so any process running as the same user can
snarf one.
Dean
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
>
> isn't that pretty much of a documented bug? the user is expected to free
> the shmblocks that an ill-constructed app (like mine) will have left
> behind because of bugs?
>
> taken from man shmctl:
>
> The user must ensure that a segment is eventually
> destroyed; otherwise its pages that were faulted in will
> remain in memory or swap.
>
> however, i have tested the same program under Linux and Solaris, and
> Solaris didn't seem to "lose" memory, while Linux seems to. I have written
> a report on the tests we've done on Linux systems and shm. I should've
> RTFM, because now i know the manpages say it's "normal".
>
> matju
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu