linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
To: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
Cc: chet.ramey@case.edu, sukadev@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, bug-bash@gnu.org,
	chet@po.cwru.edu
Subject: Re: bash: Correct usage of F_SETFD
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 01:17:16 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101124011716.GX22787@shareable.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4CEAEE3A.4090004@redhat.com>

Eric Blake wrote:
> On 11/22/2010 03:16 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
> >> include/filecntl.h in bash-4.1 has following:
> >>
> >> #define SET_CLOSE_ON_EXEC(fd)  (fcntl ((fd), F_SETFD, FD_CLOEXEC))
> >>
> >> Is that really the correct/intended usage of F_SETFD ?
> > 
> >      F_SETFD            Set the close-on-exec flag associated with fildes to
> >                         the low order bit of arg (0 or 1 as above).
> > 
> >> If kernel ever adds a new flag to the fd, this would end up clearing the
> >> other new flag right ?
> >>
> >> Shouldn't bash use F_GETFD to get the current flags and set/clear just
> >> the FD_CLOEXEC bit ?
> > 
> > I suppose it would matter if there are systems that have more than one
> > flag value.
> 
> In practice, there aren't any such systems; but POSIX warns that current
> practice is no indicator of future systems, and that read-modify-write
> is the only way to use F_SETFD.

There are so many programs using F_SETFD the way Bash does, that it
would be quite brave (or stupid) to add another flag.

-- Jamie

      parent reply	other threads:[~2010-11-24  1:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-11-22 20:16 bash: Correct usage of F_SETFD Sukadev Bhattiprolu
2010-11-22 22:16 ` Chet Ramey
2010-11-22 22:27   ` Eric Blake
2010-11-23  0:04     ` Sukadev Bhattiprolu
2010-11-23 14:42       ` Matthew Wilcox
2010-11-23 14:51         ` Eric Blake
2010-11-23 17:51           ` Sukadev Bhattiprolu
2010-11-24  1:17     ` Jamie Lokier [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20101124011716.GX22787@shareable.org \
    --to=jamie@shareable.org \
    --cc=bug-bash@gnu.org \
    --cc=chet.ramey@case.edu \
    --cc=chet@po.cwru.edu \
    --cc=eblake@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sukadev@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).