Matthew, What alternative would you suggest? >From an earlier email: > ...nothing else addresses the underlying issue: there is no way to > prevent a fork() from duplicating the resource. The close-on-exec > flag partially-addresses this by allowing the parent process to > mark a file descriptor as exclusive to itself, but there is still > a period of time the failure can occur because the auto-close only > occurs during the exec(). Perhaps this would not be an issue with > a different process/threading model, but that is another discussion > entirely. Do you disagree there is an issue? -----Original Message----- From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 10:58 To: Karstens, Nate <Nate.Karstens@xxxxxxxxxx> Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>; J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>; Richard Henderson <rth@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Matt Turner <mattst88@xxxxxxxxx>; James E.J. Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Helge Deller <deller@xxxxxx>; David S. Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx>; Eric Dumazet <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx>; David Laight <David.Laight@xxxxxxxxxx>; linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-alpha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-parisc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; sparclinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Changli Gao <xiaosuo@xxxxxxxxx>; a.josey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Implement close-on-fork CAUTION - EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click any links or open any attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe. On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 10:23:17AM -0500, Nate Karstens wrote: > Series of 4 patches to implement close-on-fork. Tests have been > published to https://github.com/nkarstens/ltp/tree/close-on-fork > and cover close-on-fork functionality in the following syscalls: [...] > 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). NAK to this patch series, and the entire concept. Is there a way to persuade POSIX that they made a bad decision by standardising this mess? ________________________________ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and contain information that may be Garmin confidential and/or Garmin legally privileged. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by reply email and delete the message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this communication (including attachments) by someone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. Thank you.
