Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 14:00:30 +0200 From: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Cc: David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie> Subject: Re: Inetd and wrapping. Message-ID: <86080.929966430@axl.noc.iafrica.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 18 Jun 1999 14:11:26 %2B0100." <9906181411.aa23134@salmon.maths.tcd.ie>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Folks, public feedback on the following portion of David's mail would be
much appreciated. Since resolution of UDP wrapping would bring about the
execution of the "we want tcpd" campaign, it's obviously something that
both David and I would like to see finished off.
It's just that we'd like it finished off in a manner that is acceptable
to the more die-hard hackers.
Is committing changes the only way to ellicit DES / bde / other-nasty
responses? ;-)
Thanks,
Sheldon.
On Fri, 18 Jun 1999 14:11:26 +0100, David Malone wrote:
> An interesting question is, should we try to do this in a
> clever fashion, or should we stick with something simple.
> The simple implimentation looks like:
>
> fork(); if( rejected ) exit() else provide_serivce();
>
> The clever implimentation would look like:
>
> fork; while( rejected && !timedout ) { get new packet };
> if( timedout ) exit() else provide_service();
>
> The clever one reduces forks, but as inetd isn't the place
> where high performance services are provided from the extra
> complexity may not be worth it.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86080.929966430>