Re: mach_host_self() doesn't acquire new port name?!

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:

> Now, we actually leak all these urefs (for example, when calling
> gettimeofday). Even for a process calling mach_host_self() 1000 times a
> second it would take 50 days to overflow. For purity, should we deallocate
> the port? Overflow is set to TRUE in this code path, so it might
> be okay to just not bother anyway (ignoring that we might not want to bother
> because it is extremely unlikely to ever overflow)? Am I just paranoid?
> There are only a dozen places or so where we call mach_host_self, so it
> wouldn't be too hard to fix if that's the right thing to do.

What kind of "overflow" are you worried about?