[lkml]   [2020]   [Apr]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Implement close-on-fork
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 02:15:44AM -0500, Nate Karstens wrote:
> Series of 4 patches to implement close-on-fork. Tests have been
> published to
> close-on-fork addresses race conditions in system(), which
> (depending on the implementation) is non-atomic in that it
> first calls a fork() and then an exec().
> This functionality was approved by the Austin Common Standards
> Revision Group for inclusion in the next revision of the POSIX
> standard (see issue 1318 in the Austin Group Defect Tracker).

What exactly the reasons are and why would we want to implement that?

Pardon me, but going by the previous history, "The Austin Group Says It's
Good" is more of a source of concern regarding the merits, general sanity
and, most of all, good taste of a proposal.

I'm not saying that it's automatically bad, but you'll have to go much
deeper into the rationale of that change before your proposal is taken

 \ /
  Last update: 2020-04-22 17:02    [W:0.122 / U:7.404 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site