Re: get_max_open_descriptors() is more generous than Nsock.

["Luis MartinGarcia." <luis.mgarc () gmail com>]

On 12/19/2011 01:56 PM, Henri Doreau wrote:
> Hi Luis,
>
> 2011/12/19 Luis MartinGarcia. <luis.mgarc () gmail com>:
> > nsock_core.c:186: Attempt to FD_SET fd 1024, which is not less than
> > FD_SETSIZE (1024). Try using a lower parallelism.
> >
> > Has anyone experienced this behavior? Is nsock failing to determine the
> > maximum number of descriptors per process? Is it
> > get_max_open_descriptors()'s fault?
> This is neither nsock nor netutil's fault. The problem is that
> select(2) can't deal with more than FD_SETSIZE descriptors. This
> number is usually set to 1024, regardless your system configuration
> for resource limits. Removing this select(2)-related limitation was
> one of my primary aims for writing nsock-engines.
>
> Depending on how get_max_open_descriptors() is used it might make
> sense to make the function return MIN(FD_SETSIZE, <rlimit>).

Hi Henri,

Thanks for your quick response.

I should know the answer to this but, what's the current status of the
nsock-engines branch? Has it been merged into trunk? If it has, how do I
determine if the selected engine is select()-based or uses something
better? I'd like to find a way to use more than 1024 descriptors when
possible, not just use 1024 by default.

Thanks! Regards,

Luis MartinGarcia.
_______________________________________________
Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list
http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev
Archived at http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/