Re: Updates to /bin/bash

[Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>]

>>>>> " " == 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, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux.eu.org/Linux-MM/