[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200710011949.03482.vda.linux@googlemail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 19:49:03 +0100
From: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
Cc: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: F_DUPFD_CLOEXEC implementation
On Monday 01 October 2007 19:16, Al Viro wrote:
> * it's on a bunch of cyclic lists. Have its neighbor
> go away while you are doing all that crap => boom
> * there's that thing call current position... It gets buggered.
> * overwriting it while another task might be in the middle of
> syscall involving it => boom
Hm, I suspected that it's herecy. Any idea how to do it cleanly?
> * non-cooperative tasks reading *in* *parallel* from the same
> opened file are going to have a lot more serious problems than agreeing
> on O_NONBLOCK anyway, so I really don't understand what the hell is that for.
They don't even need to read in parallel, just having shared fd is enough.
Think about pipes, sockets and terminals. A real-world scenario:
* a process started from shell (interactive or shell script)
* it sets O_NONBLOCK and does a read from fd 0...
* it gets killed (kill -9, whatever)
* shell suddenly has it's fd 0 in O_NONBLOCK mode
* shell and all subsequent commands started from it unexpectedly have
O_NONBLOCKed stdin.
--
vda
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists