On Fri, 07.06.13 11:44, Steve Grubb (sgrubb@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > 88 times? Something changed. It didn't used to be this bad. Its doing this > over and over on the same file it was denied access on previously. Actually all libpulse clients do this. > > POSIX shared memory doesn't define any useful scheme for automatic > > removing of shared memory segments from /dev/shm after use. Hence, in > > order to make sure that left-over segments don't fill up /dev/shm > > forever PA will try to GC dead segments from /dev/shm on each > > start-up. For that it iterates through /dev/shm/pulse-shm*, tries to > > read the PID that is stored in there. > > Maybe the uid can be encoded in the name so that wrong uid's are > skipped? But why? This stuff should be simple, and it's always a better idea to simply let the kernel do EACCES rather then trying to be smarter than the kernel and reimplement access control in userspace. > > When the PID still exists it goes > > to the next file. If the PID doesn't exist it unlinks the file and then > > goes to the next one. It's a simple scheme that works around the > > limitations of POSIX shm. Of course /dev/shm is a single namespace for > > all users, hence not all files can be opened, and that's totally cool > > and expected, and they will be skipped. > > > > Shared memory on Linux is a mess. Not automatic clean up, > > shmctl(<id>, IPC_RMID doesn't help? shmctl() is SysV shared memory. /dev/shm is POSIX shared memory. So, no, it wouldn't help. And IPC_RMID is in no way nicer than unlink() of a file. Both are invitations for leaving dead files around. They are both badly designed interfaces. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
