lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [May]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: FD_CLFORK or equivalent?
    Date
    Argh wrong button. Remind me not to use vi

    To continue

    > Is there an existing Linux/Unix mechanism to force fds closed
    > on fork() that I am unaware of?

    They exist only for exec - since within just a fork() the situation
    is under your control. It is your fault if you forget to close() it - the
    kernel isnt there to baby you - and if you want it to you can write a nice
    fork wrapper that asks the library to close handles it is using.

    > If not, before I hack one in as a private kernel patch, is
    > there any reason to add such a mechanism, perhaps a FD_CLOFORK
    > flag, and does anybody have suggestions on where to start?

    FD_CLOFORK is the logical way to do it so that it matches FD_CLOEXEC. Think
    hard about the semantics for threaded applications where they share the
    same file handles when doing this.

    Alan


    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:51    [W:0.020 / U:58.904 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site