From owner-freebsd-security Tue Oct 1 16: 2:54 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10A8637B401 for ; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 16:02:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw.catspoiler.org (217-ip-163.nccn.net [209.79.217.163]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81A6643E6A for ; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 16:02:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dl-freebsd@catspoiler.org) Received: from mousie.catspoiler.org (mousie.catspoiler.org [192.168.101.2]) by gw.catspoiler.org (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g91N27vU014349; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 16:02:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dl-freebsd@catspoiler.org) Message-Id: <200210012302.g91N27vU014349@gw.catspoiler.org> Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 16:02:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Don Lewis Subject: Re: RE: Is FreeBSD's tar susceptible to this? To: brett@lariat.org Cc: dillon@apollo.backplane.com, piechota@argolis.org, aaron@namba1.com, security@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20021001141233.036c0b00@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 1 Oct, Brett Glass wrote: > At 01:47 PM 10/1/2002, Matthew Dillon wrote: >> I'm not sure I understand why you are advocating integrating bzip >> into tar. > > Because IPC consumes resources and computing power. Going directly to > zlib makes a lot more sense, IMHO. Compared to the bzip CPU hog, the IPC overhead is lost in the noise. On the other hand, doing this in separate processes allows tar to overlap its I/O with the compression being done by bzip. The approach taken by dump to overlap disk I/O with tape I/O would be better, and an even better approach would be to do this in one process with threads. I'm not volunteering ... To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message