On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 04:01:07PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > 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 https://github.com/nkarstens/ltp/tree/close-on-fork. > > > > 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 > seriously. https://www.mail-archive.com/austin-group-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg05324.html might be useful
