Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 14:37:20 +0200 From: Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg@britannica.bec.de> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: add closefrom() call Message-ID: <20070706123720.GC427@britannica.bec.de> In-Reply-To: <20070706124407.T9997@fledge.watson.org> References: <de5dfb5a0707041727j3e3518f9l5a019717a9f90aa@mail.gmail.com> <20070705122650.GE1302@britannica.bec.de> <468E16E6.6030608@delphij.net> <20070706124407.T9997@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 12:50:17PM +0100, Robert Watson wrote: > Solaris side-steps this issue by simply auditing the individual close() > system calls. My preference would be that we implement this in user space > also, which would likewise generate a series of audit events, one for each > system call. The procfs optimization they use (I wonder -- is it really an > optimization?) won't work for us, however. Do you think that there's a > strong motivation to provide a closefrom(2) system call, rather than a > closefrom(3) library call? This would let us neatly avoid the question > you've posed :-). I can think of at least one possible scenario where it makes a difference: multi-threaded applications with concurrent open/closefrom calls. I would expect the kernel version to ensure that all open files start from the given file descriptor. Joerg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070706123720.GC427>