[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <542D1726.3040801@draigBrady.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 10:13:10 +0100
From: Pádraig Brady <P@...igBrady.com>
To: Yann Droneaud <ydroneaud@...eya.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk@....de>,
Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>,
Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
stable@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Lino Sanfilippo <LinoSanfilippo@....de>,
Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu>,
Michael Kerrisk-manpages <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fanotify: add a flag to allow setting O_CLOEXEC on event
fd
On 10/02/2014 08:52 AM, Yann Droneaud wrote:
> In order to not potentially break applications which were
> requesting O_CLOEXEC on event file descriptors but which
> actually need it to be not effective as the kernel currently
> ignore the flag, so the file descriptor is inherited accross
> exec regardless of O_CLOEXEC (please forgive me for the
> wording), this patch introduces FAN_FD_CLOEXEC flag to
> fanotify_init() so that application can request O_CLOEXEC
> to be effective.
> Newer application would use FAN_FD_CLOEXEC flag along
> O_CLOEXEC to enable close on exec on newly created
> file descriptor:
>
> fd = fanotify_init(FAN_CLOEXEC|FAN_NONBLOCK|FAN_FD_CLOEXEC,
> O_RDONLY|O_LARGEFILE|O_CLOEXEC|O_NOATIME);
Ugh really?
IMHO there should be widespread or at least known breakage with
O_CLOEXEC before adding messiness like this.
It seems surprising to me that apps that would depend on
O_CLOEXEC being ineffective.
please reconsider this one.
thanks,
Pádraig.
--
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