|
Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com |
Re: [Full-disclosure] Re: readdir_r considered harmful
From: Andrew Miller (andrew
amxl.com)
Date: Mon Nov 07 2005 - 19:47:18 CST
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Casper.Dik
Sun.COM wrote:
...
>Had they done so, we would never have had to use readdir_r() and progammers
>would not have introduced bugs in the (mis)use of pathconf, over allocating,
>etc.
>
>I would be interested in seeing any real-world use of readdir_r() in
>a context where readdir_r() is required (multiple threads reading from
>a single DIR *).
>
>
Consider the following situation(I'm not sure if anyone actually does this):
1) You have a "spool" directory containing a large number of files, each
which represents a task to process.
2) You have a number of worker threads. Each worker thread reads a file
from the global DIR*, and then opens and reads the file for
processing(and then loops on 2).
Of course, you could always just put a mutex around every call to
readdir(), and copy the filename somewhere safe, or you could invent a
signalling system to ask one thread to do all the readdir()s. Whether
this makes sense depends on how much of readdir_r has to be spent inside
a global mutex/spinlock anyway, and how long the processing part takes
compared with the readdir() part.
Andrew
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]