|
|
Log in / Subscribe / Register

sys_indirect()

sys_indirect()

Posted Nov 21, 2007 11:09 UTC (Wed) by liljencrantz (guest, #28458)
Parent article: sys_indirect() 

Is close on exec flags on other such race conditions really common enough that using a simple
lock around exec calls is an unacceptable solution?

to post comments

sys_indirect()

Posted Nov 21, 2007 18:05 UTC (Wed) by daney (guest, #24551) [Link] 

The problem for the accept() system call is that it normally blocks.  If you had to acquire a
lock, you would end up blocking all other threads.

sys_indirect()

Posted Nov 29, 2007 13:10 UTC (Thu) by endecotp (guest, #36428) [Link] 

The problem is that any third-party library functions that you call need to know about and use
this lock.  Or, you need to hold a lock around the entire library function call.

Personally I'd be happy to just make close-on-exec the default, though no doubt other people
have code that would be broken by that.


Copyright © 2026, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds