Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:48:54 +0200 From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no> To: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: /etc/rc.d locking devd.pid Message-ID: <86iqeb61uh.fsf@ds4.des.no> In-Reply-To: <20091019112938.GT2160@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> (Kostik Belousov's message of "Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:29:38 %2B0300") References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0910171503010.89326@wonkity.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0910181542440.94243@wonkity.com> <20091018220935.GR2160@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <86my3n6d8k.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20091019112938.GT2160@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> writes: > Why ? We definitely leak file descriptor on exec(2) unless daemon > explicitely closes it after fork. I said that it is unobvious is it > right to enforce FD_CLOEXEC unconditionally, because some daemons > exec() itself to reinitialize. Sorry, you're right, FD_CLOEXEC does not affect fork(2). Anyway - I'm writing regression tests for pidfile(3). Please don't commit anything until they're done. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86iqeb61uh.fsf>