Re: 32-bit pid_t / security

[Alan Cox]

> If you read my entire post, rather than just the part that you quoted,
> you'll see that I argue FOR, not against, a larger pid_t, based on just
> these grounds; I know that sooner or later, we'll need those extra
> processes. Well, my 486 won't...

S/390 folks run 70,000 sessions active within the same 60 second period off
one big box. Not on Linux (yet ;)) but its worth bearing in mind.

Alan

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/