Message 258025 - Python tracker

➜

This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author	gvanrossum
Recipients	benhoyt, gvanrossum, larry, serhiy.storchaka, vstinner
Date	2016-01-11.21:42:12
SpamBayes Score	-1.0
Marked as misclassified	Yes
Message-id	<CAP7+vJK5WMSu+_KxvbKtNpEVRexQ0aRzWkKE5aLjwcZdsvHF-g@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to	<1452548122.1.0.103553265034.issue25995@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>

Content
I am all for preventing the leaks. But using FDs proportional to the tree depth seems reasonable to me. (If you are worried about some kind of DoS attack on the algorithm by someone who can build a tree with depth 1000, well, if they can do that they can also create a flat folder with a million files in it.) Is there a potential hybrid strategy, where for small directories we close the FD but for large directories we keep it open?

I am all for preventing the leaks. But using FDs proportional to the tree
depth seems reasonable to me. (If you are worried about some kind of DoS
attack on the algorithm by someone who can build a tree with depth 1000,
well, if they can do that they can also create a flat folder with a million
files in it.)

Is there a potential hybrid strategy, where for small directories we close
the FD but for large directories we keep it open?

History
Date	User	Action	Args
2016-01-11 21:42:12	gvanrossum	set	recipients: + gvanrossum, vstinner, larry, benhoyt, serhiy.storchaka
2016-01-11 21:42:12	gvanrossum	link	issue25995 messages
2016-01-11 21:42:12	gvanrossum	create