Home > Archive > Unix Programming > June 2007 > Could I use a semaphore in this case?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Could I use a semaphore in this case?
|
|
| K-mart Cashier 2007-06-24, 7:07 pm |
| I have two different users on a system. Both users have user (not
super users) privileges on this system. Also, both users are in the
same group. Now I want person A to add two numbers and send this
result to person B. I then want person B to check if the sum is even
or odd. If the sum is even, I then want person B to send back "It's an
even number." If it's an odd number, then person B would just discard
the results.
Is this possible to do with something like semaphores or named pipes?
Chad
| |
| Pascal Bourguignon 2007-06-24, 7:07 pm |
| K-mart Cashier <cdalten@gmail.com> writes:
> I have two different users on a system. Both users have user (not
> super users) privileges on this system. Also, both users are in the
> same group. Now I want person A to add two numbers and send this
> result to person B. I then want person B to check if the sum is even
> or odd. If the sum is even, I then want person B to send back "It's an
> even number." If it's an odd number, then person B would just discard
> the results.
>
> Is this possible to do with something like semaphores or named pipes?
Yes.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
NOTE: The most fundamental particles in this product are held
together by a "gluing" force about which little is currently known
and whose adhesive power can therefore not be permanently
guaranteed.
| |
| K-mart Cashier 2007-06-24, 7:07 pm |
| On Jun 23, 6:44 pm, Pascal Bourguignon <p...@informatimago.com> wrote:
> K-mart Cashier <cdal...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
> Yes.
>
> --
Thanks.
| |
| niranjan.singh@gmail.com 2007-06-26, 8:05 am |
| On Jun 24, 7:12 am, K-mart Cashier <cdal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 23, 6:44 pm, Pascal Bourguignon <p...@informatimago.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks.
use shared memory ,this can be used in form of shared secret .
| |
| Bin Chen 2007-06-26, 10:06 pm |
| On Jun 26, 7:59 pm, "niranjan.si...@gmail.com"
<niranjan.si...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 24, 7:12 am, K-mart Cashier <cdal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> use shared memory ,this can be used in form of shared secret .
Why? Any secret benefits over domain socket or named pipe?
| |
| Maxim Yegorushkin 2007-06-28, 7:08 pm |
| On 26 Jun, 15:05, Bin Chen <binary.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 26, 7:59 pm, "niranjan.si...@gmail.com"
>
>
>
> <niranjan.si...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
[color=darkred]
>
> Why? Any secret benefits over domain socket or named pipe?
Probably one could declare a pointer to a volatile to that shared
memory and use busy waiting, rather than using synchronization
primitives. Just a wild guess, do not do that! ;)
|
|
|
|
|