From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Fri Mar 11 09:37:36 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D85CACBECD for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 09:37:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bharghav2947@gmail.com) Received: from mail-lb0-x22d.google.com (mail-lb0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27AE91321 for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 09:37:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bharghav2947@gmail.com) Received: by mail-lb0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id xr8so142998638lbb.1 for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 01:37:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=sZOcsLTA3agV0C54rVdKAfRaC+zWZDN34Dxu5RnSrKw=; b=u0oCHYIlfbzS6l9ub1ykPHn/kad4DnSKHYTvpejTlQGnYPc64+WGVo8Rh+AYkmGkfT VXKphxepMvMljiy2PFqoHCgsoB9IGMXgwJ8hO7pA2FgvuLYR2K7saULgK2vv2Ep3S/q5 +Q8tfV2Pw1rQE0RQ9iCwEtOoJf7xSk15s58PissGThnb421LPX9tEFk9vco+4lXkwWU6 foFVkKuH60QqBwjnqGV9Pzt6RfXZ6/xauCREcMDTYoLlssxTj3eYNq/Pgv0ryEGfzLro 4/pWL7trMUtsLf8+WPiLXDyB+iSHhhigDgM3YJI9BW12s7LQDjM4PWuwhrSSHM0+rYAo IbeQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=sZOcsLTA3agV0C54rVdKAfRaC+zWZDN34Dxu5RnSrKw=; b=VuFYytBSbSxLe9Fk7zu0r8ZWLIi33iAD+s97XX5FIeYcmosxK41XKjITf4G/17FmNG GEyo7HKd3ujKx+3QJcPJGft1vXI2ijH8UcEn5ayoRt6/O0ufTKLz/uKIwg+sk+zHSndt PS0UzgfO16MQS1370+/tRXXMOX+zLKxd4Nhw2e9kaf+dMeA8FODiS0EYysvJI1J4e9uZ ExME4jy/tYuYkFuDDJCxf5B53KNs4jKmwg++GtUCuitSoQDcFpGNkj3GKbsXokBfQpNV L/mB61u3Dxh4GsQ7jtKD3miS9j0qRiC6roDbDQV+GfA9Z2YxKFVQDnXQDk8hyzjtRy1f D3FQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJJuoZV1Ku020ev079B8sjxB+6eEgk2060PLikpByukCLpuOmpZ6NZiTUqOgUN81oMXs9AM9E7RMFv6p/w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.126.162 with SMTP id mz2mr2776982lbb.71.1457689054038; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 01:37:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.25.196.196 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 01:37:33 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 15:07:33 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: View about passing IPC pointer to the child process from a prent process. From: pavan teja To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.21 X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 09:37:36 -0000 Hello everyone, I'm right now designing my project idea now I'm confused with a major idea which was implemented differently in different IPC meachanisms. Should a child process be allowed to share a IPC file descriptor from a parent process.Obviously it would be shared since file descriptores passed down.But what if the IPC mechanism puts a restriction on it .That even though it acquired the file descriptor it cannot participate with the file descriptor created by parent rather it shuld make its own connection to the IPC module . Please lemme the pros and cons of the above mechanism. Thank You.