On 9/26/18 5:46 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> On 09/25/2018 06:25 PM, John Ferlan wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 9/21/18 5:29 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>>> If there was a caller which would dup the client FD without
>>> CLOEXEC flag and later decided to change the flag it wouldn't be
>>> safe to do becaus
On 09/25/2018 06:25 PM, John Ferlan wrote:
>
>
> On 9/21/18 5:29 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>> If there was a caller which would dup the client FD without
>> CLOEXEC flag and later decided to change the flag it wouldn't be
>> safe to do because fork() might have had occurred meantime.
>
> blank
On 9/21/18 5:29 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> If there was a caller which would dup the client FD without
> CLOEXEC flag and later decided to change the flag it wouldn't be
> safe to do because fork() might have had occurred meantime.
blank line
> Switch to the other pattern - always dup FD wi
On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 11:29 AM +0200, Michal Privoznik
wrote:
> If there was a caller which would dup the client FD without
> CLOEXEC flag and later decided to change the flag it wouldn't be
> safe to do because fork() might have had occurred meantime.
> Switch to the other pattern - always dup
If there was a caller which would dup the client FD without
CLOEXEC flag and later decided to change the flag it wouldn't be
safe to do because fork() might have had occurred meantime.
Switch to the other pattern - always dup FD with the flag set and
let callers clear the flag if they need to do so
