Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> Setting FD_CLOEXEC with fcntl(2) may be racy, but in what way
>> it is broken to open(2) with O_CLOEXEC?
>
> Apparently windows doesn't even support it, at least not mingw. So
> you'll have to have some supprt for just explicitly closing things at
> execve anyway. And if you do that for windows, then what's the point
> of using O_CLOEXEC on Linux, and having two totally different paths
> that will just mean maintenance headache.
Ah, that's where your reaction comes from. If I understood Dscho
correctly, what he said was that I cannot set FD_CLOEXEC via fcntl()
emulation they have. It wasn't an objection to O_CLOEXEC. In fact,
since 05d1ed6148 ("mingw: ensure temporary file handles are not
inherited by child processes", 2016-08-22), we have been relying on
open(2) with O_CLOEXEC even on Windows (by emulating it with
O_NOINHERIT, which Windows has) on some codepaths.
