Re: Updates to /bin/bash

From: Trond Myklebust (trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no)
Date: Fri May 05 2000 - 03:14:00 EDT

  • Next message: Andre Hedrick: "RE: [OT] an Amicus Curae to the Honorable Thomas Penfield Jackson"

    >>>>> " " == Matthew Vanecek <linuxguy@directlink.net> 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.

    Cheers,
      Trond

    -
    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/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 05 2000 - 03:28:34 EDT