Re: 32-bit pid_t / security

From: Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk)
Date: Mon Oct 02 2000 - 06:27:16 EDT

  • Next message: David Weinehall: "Alan, are you out there?!"

    > If you read my entire post, rather than just the part that you quoted,
    > you'll see that I argue FOR, not against, a larger pid_t, based on just
    > these grounds; I know that sooner or later, we'll need those extra
    > processes. Well, my 486 won't...

    S/390 folks run 70,000 sessions active within the same 60 second period off
    one big box. Not on Linux (yet ;)) but its worth bearing in mind.

    Alan

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 06:28:37 EDT