[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.0.9999.0711161003310.15441@twinlark.arctic.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:08:41 -0800 (PST)
From: dean gaudet <dean@...tic.org>
To: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mingo@...e.hu, tglx@...utronix.de, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 4/4] first use of sys_indirect system call
you know... i understand the need for FD_CLOEXEC -- in fact i tried
petitioning for CLOEXEC options to all the fd creating syscalls something
like 7 years ago when i was banging my head against the wall trying to
figure out how to thread apache... but even still i'm not convinced that
extending every system call which creates an fd is the way to do this.
honestly i think there should be a per-task flag which indicates whether
fds are by default F_CLOEXEC or not. my reason: third party libraries.
i can control all my own code in a threaded program, but i can't control
all the code which is linked in. fds are going to leak.
if i set a per task flag then the only thing which would break are third
party libraries which use fork/exec and aren't aware they may need to
unset F_CLOEXEC. personally i'd rather break that than leak fds to
another program.
but hey i'm happy to see this sort of thing is finally being fixed,
thanks.
-dean
-
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