Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 11:51:56 -0600 From: Eric van Gyzen <eric@vangyzen.net> To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net>, Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net> Cc: Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org>, Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org>, Yuri <yuri@rawbw.com>, Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org>, Freebsd hackers list <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Is it considered to be ok to not check the return code of close(2) in base? Message-ID: <df6f98a5-76db-d6d8-6321-d35b59eeec22@vangyzen.net> In-Reply-To: <201801081655.w08GtO3D022568@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On 01/08/2018 10:55, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: >> 08.01.2018 23:13, Eric van Gyzen wrote: >> >>> Right, which is the reason such bugs are hard to diagnose. Optionally >>> killing the process on close->EBADF would help find buggy code when >>> another thread did NOT re-open the file descriptor between the two close >>> calls. >> >> Wouldn't "close(f); assert(errno != EBADF);" be better? Putting the code in one place is far better than putting it in N places...after /finding/ those N places. Indeed, the purpose of this code is to help people find those places, even in their own code, outside of base. > Or even > #ifdef DEBUG_CLOSE > #define close(f) close(f); assert(errno != EBADF); > #endif errno could have been EBADF before the close(). A successful close() does not modify errno. So, this would have be larger, making it even more unpalatable. > Then the people that want to go chasing these errors can, > and the rest of us are untouched. Every mention in this thread of killing the process has called it optional. Tools, not policy. Erichome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?df6f98a5-76db-d6d8-6321-d35b59eeec22>