Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 25 Nov 1999 09:26:17 +0000 (GMT) | From | Tigran Aivazian <> | Subject | Re: [patch-2.3.29] bugfix for pipe(2) system call. |
| |
On Thu, 25 Nov 1999, David Howells wrote: > I'd say there's a lot easier way of checking your pipe problem: pre-initialise > both elements of the array to -1 or something. It's only two int's, so the > performance penalty will be minimal.
what do you mean? You mean like this:
asmlinkage int sys_pipe(unsigned long * fildes) { int fd[2] = {-1, -1}; int error; lock_kernel(); error = do_pipe(fd); unlock_kernel(); if (!error) { if (copy_to_user(fildes, fd, 2*sizeof(int))) error = -EFAULT; } return error; }
so what? if the user does pipe(0) she will still leak two descriptors (and files and inodes and any other resources), won't she? I just verified this to make sure I am not blindly missing something obvious...
So, please clarify what you mean and how it will solve the resource leak caused by pipe(NULL) call?
Regards, Tigran.
- 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/
| |