Hello,
In most programs the delivery of SIGPIPE (typically when one side
of a socket or pipe closes and the other side tries to write) is
annoying to handle, and the only solution to avoid it is to have
the main program do signal(SIGPIPE, SIG_IGN), so the the system
calls set errno = EPIPE instea
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 09:28:48PM -0500, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> [stuff]
One thing jumps out at me: if it's a file-level flag, shouldn't it be
sufficient to use F_GETFL / F_SETFL to manipulate it, rather than
adding new fcntls?
--
David A. Holland
dholl...@netbsd.org
On Jan 23, 2012, at 7:07 PM, David Holland wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 09:28:48PM -0500, Christos Zoulas wrote:
>> [stuff]
>
> One thing jumps out at me: if it's a file-level flag, shouldn't it be
> sufficient to use F_GETFL / F_SETFL to manipulate it, rather than
> adding new fcntls?
That
hi,
> Hello,
>
> In most programs the delivery of SIGPIPE (typically when one side
> of a socket or pipe closes and the other side tries to write) is
> annoying to handle, and the only solution to avoid it is to have
> the main program do signal(SIGPIPE, SIG_IGN), so the the system
> calls set er
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 03:07:45AM +, David Holland wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 09:28:48PM -0500, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> > [stuff]
>
> One thing jumps out at me: if it's a file-level flag, shouldn't it be
> sufficient to use F_GETFL / F_SETFL to manipulate it, rather than
> adding new
On Jan 24, 3:07am, dholland-t...@netbsd.org (David Holland) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Adding an option to avoid SIGPIPE for all file descriptors
| On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 09:28:48PM -0500, Christos Zoulas wrote:
| > [stuff]
|
| One thing jumps out at me: if it's a file-level flag, shouldn
> I also wonder whether we should also have a note that disabled SIGPIPE.
> similar to what paxctl does.
>
You mean a system-wide flag? That would worry me; I think it would have
bad effects, since anything that did
a | b
would be liable to cause infinite loops if 'a' didn't check the
On Jan 23, 2012, at 7:58 PM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
>> I also wonder whether we should also have a note that disabled SIGPIPE.
>> similar to what paxctl does.
>>
> You mean a system-wide flag? That would worry me; I think it would have
> bad effects, since anything that did
>
> a | b
p
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:58:59PM -0500, Steven Bellovin wrote:
> > I also wonder whether we should also have a note that disabled SIGPIPE.
> > similar to what paxctl does.
>
> You mean a system-wide flag? That would worry me; I think it would have
> bad effects, since anything that did
>
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:58:59PM -0500, Steven Bellovin wrote:
> > I also wonder whether we should also have a note that disabled SIGPIPE.
> > similar to what paxctl does.
> >
> You mean a system-wide flag? That would worry me; I think it would have
> bad effects, since anything that did
>
>
On Jan 24, 3:20am, y...@mwd.biglobe.ne.jp (YAMAMOTO Takashi) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Adding an option to avoid SIGPIPE for all file descriptors
| please don't forget compat_netbsd32 copy.
I don't see anything to do there? What should I do?
Thanks,
christos
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:43:38PM -0500, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> | On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 09:28:48PM -0500, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> | > [stuff]
> |
> | One thing jumps out at me: if it's a file-level flag, shouldn't it be
> | sufficient to use F_GETFL / F_SETFL to manipulate it, rather t
On Jan 24, 5:19pm, dholland-t...@netbsd.org (David Holland) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Adding an option to avoid SIGPIPE for all file descriptors
| On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:43:38PM -0500, Christos Zoulas wrote:
| > | On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 09:28:48PM -0500, Christos Zoulas wr
t...@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) writes:
>On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 03:07:45AM +, David Holland wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 09:28:48PM -0500, Christos Zoulas wrote:
>> > [stuff]
>>
>> One thing jumps out at me: if it's a file-level flag, shouldn't it be
>> sufficient to use F_GETFL /
On Tue 24 Jan 2012 at 21:33:44 +, Michael van Elst wrote:
> Unfortunately noone did ever think about a SIGNOSPACE and that's
> why every Unix system now requires an infinite disk.
Well, that does sound like a resource limit being exceeded, so why
not send
25SIGXFSZ terminate pr
hi,
> On Jan 24, 3:20am, y...@mwd.biglobe.ne.jp (YAMAMOTO Takashi) wrote:
> -- Subject: Re: Adding an option to avoid SIGPIPE for all file descriptors
>
> | please don't forget compat_netbsd32 copy.
>
> I don't see anything to do there? What should I do?
i mea
On Jan 24, 2012, at 3:26 41AM, David Laight wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:58:59PM -0500, Steven Bellovin wrote:
>>> I also wonder whether we should also have a note that disabled SIGPIPE.
>>> similar to what paxctl does.
>>>
>> You mean a system-wide flag? That would worry me; I think it
On Jan 23, 2012, at 11:05 58PM, Matt Thomas wrote:
>
> On Jan 23, 2012, at 7:58 PM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
>
>>> I also wonder whether we should also have a note that disabled SIGPIPE.
>>> similar to what paxctl does.
>>>
>> You mean a system-wide flag? That would worry me; I think it would h
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 02:04:58PM -0500, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> | (and I don't suppose we can think of a clever way to stuff the compat
> | fcntls into libcompat or some such place so they don't bloat out the
> | core system...)
>
> The compat fcntls, are just 8 lines of code.
>
> #defi
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:25:46 -0500
Steven Bellovin wrote:
>
> On Jan 23, 2012, at 11:05 58PM, Matt Thomas wrote:
>
> >
> > On Jan 23, 2012, at 7:58 PM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
> >
> >>> I also wonder whether we should also have a note that disabled SIGPIPE.
> >>> similar to what paxctl does.
>
20 matches
Mail list logo
