On Tue, 2025-03-11 at 12:21 +0000, Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote: > Now that > we do have a practical use, this is worth revisiting.
I've submitted: https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1913 > > b) Does it even solve the original problem, or could e.g. such a > > n<&n > > respectively m>&m fail itself (not e.g. because a file doesn't > > exist, but because of something like resource exhaustion, etc.) > > It could potentially solve the original problem if we can get > consensus > to add something suitable to the standard. It would probably not yet solve (b), or would it? I mean not if it were merely defined as you propose: > So I would support updating the standard to require that n<&n and > n>&n are always a no-op if fd n is open, except that if the shell > normally closes fds > 2, that were opened with exec, when it executes > a non-built-in utility, then applying n<&n or n>&n to such commands > causes fd n to remain open. That would in principle still allow for such redirection to fail (e.g. resource exhaustion), with no obvious way of detecting/handling such cases. Thanks, Chris
