On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 10:20 AM Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> That's just completely weird. We can see what Linus thinks but I think
> that's a somewhat outlandish proposal that I wouldn't support.
I have no idea of the background here.
But fd 0 is in absolutely no way special. Anything that thinks that a
zero fd is invalid or in any way different from (say) fd 5 is
completely and utterly buggy by definition.
Now, fd 0 can obviously be invalid in the sense that it may not be
open, exactly the same way fd 100 may not be open. So in *that* sense
we can have an invalid fd 0, and system calls might return EBADF for
trying to access it if somebody has closed it.
If bpf thinks that 0 is not a file descriptor, then bpf is simply
wrong. No ifs, buts or maybes about it. It's like saying "1 is not a
number". It's nonsensical garbage.
But maybe I misunderstand the issue.
Linus
