On Sun, 2007-09-30 at 18:00 +0200, Lars Stavholm wrote: > Timo Sirainen wrote: > > On Sun, 2007-09-30 at 09:30 +0200, Lars Stavholm wrote: > >> Another (mildly stupid maybe) question: why the fork() > >> in the original dspam plugin? Seems to me that the fork() > >> + waitpid() doesn't really allow for any advantage over > >> a simple popen() and read the output? I have a sneaky > >> feeling that I'm missing something vital here. > > > > popen() uses FILE streams, which I at least try to avoid. For example in > > some systems (Solaris IIRC) they were limited to 256 first file > > descriptors. > > > > It also executes everything through /bin/sh -c, which is pointless if > > you're not running a script and possibly dangerous if you're not > > escaping parameters correctly. > > I hear you. > What would you suggest instead? > pipe() + fork() + execl()?
Yes. Or execv().
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
