Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> wrote:
> Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Would the best endgame shape for this function be to open with
> >>> O_NOATIME (and retry without), and then add CLOEXEC with fcntl(2)
> >>> but ignoring an error from it, I guess? That would be the closest
> >>> to what we historically had, I would think.
> >>
> >> I think that's the best model.
Actually, I would flip the order of flags. O_CLOEXEC is more
important from a correctness standpoint.
> > OK, so perhaps like this.
>
> Hmph. This may not fly well in practice, though.
>
> To Unix folks, CLOEXEC is not a huge correctness issue. A child
> process may hold onto an open file descriptor a bit longer than the
> lifetime of the parent but as long as the child eventually exits,
I'm not too familiar with C internals of git; but I know we use
threads in some places, and fork+execve in others.
If our usage of threads and execve intersects, and we run
untrusted code in an execve-ed child, then only having cloexec
on open() will save us time when auditing for leaking FDs.
fcntl(fd, F_SETFD, O_CLOEXEC) is racy in if there are other
threads doing execve; so I wouldn't rely on it as a first
choice.
So I suppose something like this:
static int noatime = 1;
int fd = open(... | O_CLOEXEC);
...error checking and retrying...
if (fd >= 0 && noatime && fcntl(fd, F_SETFL, O_NOATIME) != 0)
noatime = 0;
return fd;
