Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 09:47:14 +0200 From: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za> To: Hiroyuki Hanai <hanai@imgsrc.co.jp> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org, markm@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: fcntl and /dev/random Message-ID: <200007290747.JAA03041@grimreaper.grondar.za> In-Reply-To: <8266pp602g.wl@darkmatter.imgsrc.co.jp> ; from Hiroyuki Hanai <hanai@imgsrc.co.jp> "Sat, 29 Jul 2000 13:18:47 %2B0900." References: <8266pp602g.wl@darkmatter.imgsrc.co.jp>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi
I'm looking at this; I'll have something by the end of the weekend
for 5-CURRENT; 4-STABLE will take a bit longer. I don't think I'll
dop anything for 3-* as it is at its end-of-life.
Domo Arrigato!
M
>
> Setting status flags using F_SETFL command of fcntl(2) on the file
> descriptor, which is returned by open(2)ing /dev/random, seems not to
> be supported. For example, when I run following code;
>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <errno.h>
> #include <fcntl.h>
> main()
> {
> int fd;
> fd = open("/dev/random", O_RDONLY);
> if (fcntl(fd, F_SETFL, O_NONBLOCK) == -1) {
> printf("%s\n", strerror(errno));
> }
> }
>
> 3.4-RELEASE(and possibly 3.5 and 3.5.1) and 4.1-RELEASE/4.1-STABLE say
> `Inappropriate ioctl for device' and 5-current says `Operation not
> supported by device'.
>
> I've found above in BIND9's source and its `named' program complains
> everytime it's invoked.
>
> Should I fix BIND9's code? or wait for fcntl's F_SETFL being
> supported on FreeBSD?
>
> Actually, in BIND9, fd is already open(2)ed with `O_RDONLY | O_NONBLOCK'
> and setting O_NONBLOCK status with fcntl(2) is not needed, which means
> that fixing BIND9's code is very simple; just comment out the fcntl(2)ing lin
e.
>
> h.hanai
>
--
Mark Murray
Join the anti-SPAM movement: http://www.cauce.org
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200007290747.JAA03041>