Re: Hashing and directories

[David Weinehall]

On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 10:04:10AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > > >         * userland issues (what, you thought that limits on the
> > > > command size will go away?)
> > > 
> > > Last I checked, the command line size limit wasn't a userland issue, but
> > > rather a limit of the kernel exec().  This might have changed.
> > 
> > I _really_ don't want to trust the ability of shell to deal with long
> > command lines. I also don't like the failure modes with history expansion
> > causing OOM, etc.
> > 
> > AFAICS right now we hit the kernel limit first, but I really doubt that
> > raising said limit is a good idea.
> 
> I am running with 2MB limit right now. I doubt 2MB will lead to OOM.

You know, with a box with 4MB of RAM (or indeed 2MB, which should still
be possible on a Linux-system), a 2MB command-line is a very effective
DoS :^)

> > xargs is there for purpose...
> 
> xargs is very ugly. I want to rm 12*. Just plain "rm 12*". *Not* "find
> . -name "12*" | xargs rm, which has terrible issues with files names
> 
> "xyzzy"
> "bla"
> "xyzzy bla"
> "12 xyzzy bla"
> 
> !
> 
> I do not want to deal with xargs. Xargs was made to workaround
> limitation at command line size (and is broken in itself). Now we have
> hardware that can handle bigger commandlines just fine, xargs should
> be killed.

/David Weinehall
  _                                                                 _
 // David Weinehall <[e-mail]> /> Northern lights wander      \\
//  Project MCA Linux hacker        //  Dance across the winter sky //
\>  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/    </   Full colour fire           </