On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 07:12:08PM -0400, James Carlson wrote: > I think that's slightly inferior: it requires an extra fd for no reason > at all and thus adds an unnecessary failure mode. I like the close(0), > open, dup2(0,1), dup2(0,2) model better. And closing 1 and 2 first is > even better for (implausible) security reasons.
I prefer to fail with an extra fildes open for /dev/null (though the code I posted wouldn't allow that) than to fail with no fildes 0. Yes, it's just paranoia. Nico --
