lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Fri, 15 May 2020 17:03:42 +0100
From:   Al Viro <>
To:     Nate Karstens <>
Cc:     Jeff Layton <>,
        "J. Bruce Fields" <>,
        Arnd Bergmann <>,
        Richard Henderson <>,
        Ivan Kokshaysky <>,
        Matt Turner <>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <>,
        Helge Deller <>,
        "David S. Miller" <>,
        Jakub Kicinski <>,
        Eric Dumazet <>,
        David Laight <>,,,,,,,, Changli Gao <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Implement close-on-fork

On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 10:23:17AM -0500, Nate Karstens wrote:

> This functionality was approved by the Austin Common Standards
> Revision Group for inclusion in the next revision of the POSIX
> standard (see issue 1318 in the Austin Group Defect Tracker).

It penalizes every call of fork() in the system (as well as adds
an extra dirtied cacheline on each socket()/open()/etc.), adds
memory footprint and complicates the API.  All of that - to deal
with rather uncommon problem that already has a portable solution.

As for the Austin Group, the only authority it has ever had derives
from consensus between existing Unices.  "Solaris does it, Linux and
*BSD do not" translates into "Austin Group is welcome to take a hike".
BTW, contrary to the lovely bit of misrepresentation in that
thread of theirs ("<LWN URL> suggests that" != "someone's comment
under LWN article says it _appears_ that"), none of *BSD do it.

IMO it's a bad idea.

NAKed-by: Al Viro <>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists