Re: I'm done with O_CLOEXEC
- Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 12:40:48 +0200
- From: Alexander Larsson <alexl@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: I'm done with O_CLOEXEC
On tis, 2015-03-31 at 09:48 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> On lör, 2015-03-21 at 20:57 -0400, Ryan Lortie wrote:
> > hi,
> > On Sat, Mar 21, 2015, at 01:59, Jürg Billeter wrote:
> > > I would keep using O_CLOEXEC as it's as close as we can get to the
> > > behavior that should have been the default: don't implicitly inherit
> > > file descriptors on exec.
> > >
> > > Maybe there are applications out there that rely on correct file
> > > descriptor flags and directly call fork/exec. You could try to convince
> > > them to switch to GSubprocess (or work around the issue in their own
> > > fork/exec code). However, as I think we all agree that O_CLOEXEC is the
> > > best default behavior, I don't see why we should break these
> > > applications.
> > This is probably the best counter-argument so far: since we all agree
> > that the inherit-by-default behaviour is silly, we should try as much as
> > possible to mitigate it.
> Overall I don't quite see what the argument is, other than the above
> which I agree with.
> Its a fact of life that O_CLOEXEC (and the threadsafe setting of it) is
> not universally available on the systems we support glib on. This means
> we *have* to close all open fds in e.g. g_spawn(), and no code can
> safely rely on it having been used on all open fds.
Actually, what *really* would help here in terms of kernel support would
be a syscall that closed a range of fds. This could be very efficient in
the kernel, avoiding the issues with the close-after-fork solution, but
very easily put into use.
Alexander Larsson Red Hat, Inc
He's a fiendish vegetarian master criminal with no name. She's an
artistic mutant hooker with an MBA from Harvard. They fight crime!
gtk-devel-list mailing list