Re: I'm done with O_CLOEXEC
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 1:10 AM, Ryan Lortie <desrt@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 23:33, Matthias Clasen wrote:
>> So, you found that dup3 doesn't do what you want, and now you want to
>> throw out the baby with the bathwater and just say "I don't care
>> anymore if we leak fds" ?
> dup3() was a bit of a "straw that broke the camel's back" case. I could
> point at the existence of g_unix_open_pipe() as a similarly ridiculous
> case, or many others.
> I'm also not impressed by the inaccurate categorisation. I thought I
> explained fairly clearly why I believe that leaked fds will _not_ be the
> case, even without O_CLOEXEC.
> I was looking for some slightly more constructive arguments...
Before we can have constructive arguments, we first need to understand
what you are actually proposing. Most of your mail was an extended
whine about inadequacies of posix in general, and fd inheritance in
particular. Jasper asked the right question:
Will you accept patches that add cloexec-correctness where it is
missing, in the future ?
Are you actually suggesting that we rip out all code that is currently
doing the right thing, cloexec-wise ?
gtk-devel-list mailing list