pidfd_open.2: PIDFD_NONBLOCK is not defined by the listed headers

pidfd_open.2: PIDFD_NONBLOCK is not defined by the listed headers

[Emanuele Torre]

Hello.


pidfd_open(2) only lists sys/syscall.h and unistd.h in its SYNOPSYS:

  SYNOPSIS
         #include <sys/syscall.h>      /* Definition of SYS_* constants */
         #include <unistd.h>

         int syscall(SYS_pidfd_open, pid_t pid, unsigned int flags);

         Note:  glibc provides no wrapper for pidfd_open(), necessitating
         the use of syscall(2).

Then it mentions PIDFD_NONBLOCK as one of its flags:

  PIDFD_NONBLOCK (since Linux 5.10)
         Return  a nonblocking file descriptor.  If the process referred
         to by the file descriptor has not yet terminated, then  an  at‐
         tempt to wait on the file descriptor using waitid(2) will imme‐
         diately return the error EAGAIN rather than blocking.

But PIDFD_NONBLOCK is not defined in any of the listed headers.


I have noticed that PIDFD_NONBLOCK is the same value as O_NONBLOCK,
so perhaps this flag could be listed as

  O_NONBLOCK or PIDFD_NONBLOCK (since Linux 5.10)

like O_NDELAY and O_NONBLOCK in open.2.

This way the user would know that O_NONBLOCK may be used instead of
PIDFD_NONBLOCK if PIDFD_NONBLOCK is not available.


I have also noticed that GNU libc (in its linux-api-headers submodule)
provides a linux/pidfd.h header that just defines PIDFD_NONBLOCK as
O_NONBLOCK, perhaps another solution would be to list in linux/pidfd.h
in the synopsis and say it is required to use PIDFD_NONBLOCK.


Then, I also noticed that GNU libc now also provides the sys/pidfd.h
header with the definition of PIDFD_NONBLOCK, and prototypes for
pidfd_open, pidfd_send_signal, pidfd_getfd, and also a prototype for
pidfd_getpid that is an helper function that parses the "Pid:" field
from /proc/self/fdinfo/FD and currently does not have a man page.

So probably the best solution is to just make the pidfd_open(2),
pidfd_send_signal(2), and pidfd_getfd(2) man pages tell users to include
sys/pidfd.h and call the GNU libc functions instead of including
sys/syscall.h and unistd.h and calling syscall(2) directly; now that
sys/pidfd.h exists.

And maybe to also add a pidfd_getpid(3) man page for the new pidfd
helper function.


o/
 emanuele6

Re: pidfd_open.2: PIDFD_NONBLOCK is not defined by the listed headers

[Alejandro Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3275 bytes --]

On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 07:02:39AM GMT, Emanuele Torre wrote:
> Hello.

Hi Emanuele,

> pidfd_open(2) only lists sys/syscall.h and unistd.h in its SYNOPSYS:
> 
>   SYNOPSIS
>          #include <sys/syscall.h>      /* Definition of SYS_* constants */
>          #include <unistd.h>
> 
>          int syscall(SYS_pidfd_open, pid_t pid, unsigned int flags);
> 
>          Note:  glibc provides no wrapper for pidfd_open(), necessitating
>          the use of syscall(2).
> 
> Then it mentions PIDFD_NONBLOCK as one of its flags:
> 
>   PIDFD_NONBLOCK (since Linux 5.10)
>          Return  a nonblocking file descriptor.  If the process referred
>          to by the file descriptor has not yet terminated, then  an  at‐
>          tempt to wait on the file descriptor using waitid(2) will imme‐
>          diately return the error EAGAIN rather than blocking.
> 
> But PIDFD_NONBLOCK is not defined in any of the listed headers.

Hmmm.  Thanks!  We need to add its header.

> I have noticed that PIDFD_NONBLOCK is the same value as O_NONBLOCK,
> so perhaps this flag could be listed as
> 
>   O_NONBLOCK or PIDFD_NONBLOCK (since Linux 5.10)
> 
> like O_NDELAY and O_NONBLOCK in open.2.
> 
> This way the user would know that O_NONBLOCK may be used instead of
> PIDFD_NONBLOCK if PIDFD_NONBLOCK is not available.

No.  That's an implementation detail, which shouldn't be abused.

> I have also noticed that GNU libc (in its linux-api-headers submodule)
> provides a linux/pidfd.h header that just defines PIDFD_NONBLOCK as
> O_NONBLOCK, perhaps another solution would be to list in linux/pidfd.h
> in the synopsis and say it is required to use PIDFD_NONBLOCK.

Yep, that's the kernel uapi header.  I didn't know glibc redistributes
those.

Anyway, we should indeed include <linux/pidfd.h> for this macro.

> Then, I also noticed that GNU libc now also provides the sys/pidfd.h
> header with the definition of PIDFD_NONBLOCK, and prototypes for
> pidfd_open, pidfd_send_signal, pidfd_getfd, and also a prototype for
> pidfd_getpid that is an helper function that parses the "Pid:" field
> from /proc/self/fdinfo/FD and currently does not have a man page.

Hmmm, I've CCed glibc for a question:  When you provide a macro like
this one, without providing a syscall wrapper, should we include the
glibc header or the kernel one?  Do you provide all kernel uapi macros,
or just select ones?

> 
> So probably the best solution is to just make the pidfd_open(2),
> pidfd_send_signal(2), and pidfd_getfd(2) man pages tell users to include
> sys/pidfd.h and call the GNU libc functions instead of including
> sys/syscall.h and unistd.h and calling syscall(2) directly; now that
> sys/pidfd.h exists.

Ahh, interesting.  I'm using glibc 2.38 and still don't have that one.
It seems added in 2.39.  We can directly document that in
pidfd_getfd(2).

> And maybe to also add a pidfd_getpid(3) man page for the new pidfd
> helper function.

No, usually we document the glibc wrapper in man2, unless there's a big
difference between the kernel syscall and the glibc wrapper.

Thanks for the detailed report!

Have a lovely day!
Alex

> 
> 
> o/
>  emanuele6

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: pidfd_open.2: PIDFD_NONBLOCK is not defined by the listed headers

[Alejandro Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3345 bytes --]

Oops, I mistyped the glibc list.  Below is included the original email.

---

On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 07:02:39AM GMT, Emanuele Torre wrote:
> Hello.

Hi Emanuele,

> pidfd_open(2) only lists sys/syscall.h and unistd.h in its SYNOPSYS:
>
>   SYNOPSIS
>          #include <sys/syscall.h>      /* Definition of SYS_* constants */
>          #include <unistd.h>
>
>          int syscall(SYS_pidfd_open, pid_t pid, unsigned int flags);
>
>          Note:  glibc provides no wrapper for pidfd_open(), necessitating
>          the use of syscall(2).
>
> Then it mentions PIDFD_NONBLOCK as one of its flags:
>
>   PIDFD_NONBLOCK (since Linux 5.10)
>          Return  a nonblocking file descriptor.  If the process referred
>          to by the file descriptor has not yet terminated, then  an  at‐
>          tempt to wait on the file descriptor using waitid(2) will imme‐
>          diately return the error EAGAIN rather than blocking.
>
> But PIDFD_NONBLOCK is not defined in any of the listed headers.

Hmmm.  Thanks!  We need to add its header.

> I have noticed that PIDFD_NONBLOCK is the same value as O_NONBLOCK,
> so perhaps this flag could be listed as
>
>   O_NONBLOCK or PIDFD_NONBLOCK (since Linux 5.10)
>
> like O_NDELAY and O_NONBLOCK in open.2.
>
> This way the user would know that O_NONBLOCK may be used instead of
> PIDFD_NONBLOCK if PIDFD_NONBLOCK is not available.

No.  That's an implementation detail, which shouldn't be abused.

> I have also noticed that GNU libc (in its linux-api-headers submodule)
> provides a linux/pidfd.h header that just defines PIDFD_NONBLOCK as
> O_NONBLOCK, perhaps another solution would be to list in linux/pidfd.h
> in the synopsis and say it is required to use PIDFD_NONBLOCK.

Yep, that's the kernel uapi header.  I didn't know glibc redistributes
those.

Anyway, we should indeed include <linux/pidfd.h> for this macro.

> Then, I also noticed that GNU libc now also provides the sys/pidfd.h
> header with the definition of PIDFD_NONBLOCK, and prototypes for
> pidfd_open, pidfd_send_signal, pidfd_getfd, and also a prototype for
> pidfd_getpid that is an helper function that parses the "Pid:" field
> from /proc/self/fdinfo/FD and currently does not have a man page.

Hmmm, I've CCed glibc for a question:  When you provide a macro like
this one, without providing a syscall wrapper, should we include the
glibc header or the kernel one?  Do you provide all kernel uapi macros,
or just select ones?

>
> So probably the best solution is to just make the pidfd_open(2),
> pidfd_send_signal(2), and pidfd_getfd(2) man pages tell users to include
> sys/pidfd.h and call the GNU libc functions instead of including
> sys/syscall.h and unistd.h and calling syscall(2) directly; now that
> sys/pidfd.h exists.

Ahh, interesting.  I'm using glibc 2.38 and still don't have that one.
It seems added in 2.39.  We can directly document that in
pidfd_getfd(2).

> And maybe to also add a pidfd_getpid(3) man page for the new pidfd
> helper function.

No, usually we document the glibc wrapper in man2, unless there's a big
difference between the kernel syscall and the glibc wrapper.

Thanks for the detailed report!

Have a lovely day!
Alex

>
>
> o/
>  emanuele6

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: pidfd_open.2: PIDFD_NONBLOCK is not defined by the listed headers

[Emanuele Torre]

On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 10:29:12AM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 07:02:39AM GMT, Emanuele Torre wrote:
> > So probably the best solution is to just make the pidfd_open(2),
> > pidfd_send_signal(2), and pidfd_getfd(2) man pages tell users to include
> > sys/pidfd.h and call the GNU libc functions instead of including
> > sys/syscall.h and unistd.h and calling syscall(2) directly; now that
> > sys/pidfd.h exists.
> 
> Ahh, interesting.  I'm using glibc 2.38 and still don't have that one.
> It seems added in 2.39.  We can directly document that in
> pidfd_getfd(2).
> 
> > And maybe to also add a pidfd_getpid(3) man page for the new pidfd
> > helper function.
> 
> No, usually we document the glibc wrapper in man2, unless there's a big
> difference between the kernel syscall and the glibc wrapper.

pidfd_getpid() does not have much to do with pidfd_getfd(2), and it does
not call pidfd_* syscalls either.

As far as I understand (I have never tried to use it in a program),

  pid_t pid = pidfd_getfd(pidfd);

Is equivalent to the following command in shell:

  pid=$(grep -Pom1 '^Pid:\t\K.*' /proc/self/fdinfo/"$pidfd" || echo -1)

It reads the /proc/self/fdinfo file corresponding to the given fd and
returns the value of the "Pid" field as a pid_t, or -1.

o/
 emanuele6

Re: pidfd_open.2: PIDFD_NONBLOCK is not defined by the listed headers

[Alejandro Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1656 bytes --]

On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 11:12:45AM GMT, Emanuele Torre wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 10:29:12AM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 07:02:39AM GMT, Emanuele Torre wrote:
> > > So probably the best solution is to just make the pidfd_open(2),
> > > pidfd_send_signal(2), and pidfd_getfd(2) man pages tell users to include
> > > sys/pidfd.h and call the GNU libc functions instead of including
> > > sys/syscall.h and unistd.h and calling syscall(2) directly; now that
> > > sys/pidfd.h exists.
> > 
> > Ahh, interesting.  I'm using glibc 2.38 and still don't have that one.
> > It seems added in 2.39.  We can directly document that in
> > pidfd_getfd(2).
> > 
> > > And maybe to also add a pidfd_getpid(3) man page for the new pidfd
> > > helper function.
> > 
> > No, usually we document the glibc wrapper in man2, unless there's a big
> > difference between the kernel syscall and the glibc wrapper.
> 
> pidfd_getpid() does not have much to do with pidfd_getfd(2), and it does
> not call pidfd_* syscalls either.

Ahh, sorry, I got confused with so many similarly called functions.
Anyway, we need to document that glibc added wrappers for them.

> 
> As far as I understand (I have never tried to use it in a program),
> 
>   pid_t pid = pidfd_getfd(pidfd);
> 
> Is equivalent to the following command in shell:
> 
>   pid=$(grep -Pom1 '^Pid:\t\K.*' /proc/self/fdinfo/"$pidfd" || echo -1)
> 
> It reads the /proc/self/fdinfo file corresponding to the given fd and
> returns the value of the "Pid" field as a pid_t, or -1.
> 
> o/
>  emanuele6

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: pidfd_open.2: PIDFD_NONBLOCK is not defined by the listed headers

[Adhemerval Zanella Netto]

On 20/05/24 05:53, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> Oops, I mistyped the glibc list.  Below is included the original email.
> 
> ---
> 
> On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 07:02:39AM GMT, Emanuele Torre wrote:
>> Hello.
> 
> Hi Emanuele,
> 
>> pidfd_open(2) only lists sys/syscall.h and unistd.h in its SYNOPSYS:
>>
>>   SYNOPSIS
>>          #include <sys/syscall.h>      /* Definition of SYS_* constants */
>>          #include <unistd.h>
>>
>>          int syscall(SYS_pidfd_open, pid_t pid, unsigned int flags);
>>
>>          Note:  glibc provides no wrapper for pidfd_open(), necessitating
>>          the use of syscall(2).
>>
>> Then it mentions PIDFD_NONBLOCK as one of its flags:
>>
>>   PIDFD_NONBLOCK (since Linux 5.10)
>>          Return  a nonblocking file descriptor.  If the process referred
>>          to by the file descriptor has not yet terminated, then  an  at‐
>>          tempt to wait on the file descriptor using waitid(2) will imme‐
>>          diately return the error EAGAIN rather than blocking.
>>
>> But PIDFD_NONBLOCK is not defined in any of the listed headers.
> 
> Hmmm.  Thanks!  We need to add its header.
> 
>> I have noticed that PIDFD_NONBLOCK is the same value as O_NONBLOCK,
>> so perhaps this flag could be listed as
>>
>>   O_NONBLOCK or PIDFD_NONBLOCK (since Linux 5.10)
>>
>> like O_NDELAY and O_NONBLOCK in open.2.
>>
>> This way the user would know that O_NONBLOCK may be used instead of
>> PIDFD_NONBLOCK if PIDFD_NONBLOCK is not available.
> 
> No.  That's an implementation detail, which shouldn't be abused.
> 
>> I have also noticed that GNU libc (in its linux-api-headers submodule)
>> provides a linux/pidfd.h header that just defines PIDFD_NONBLOCK as
>> O_NONBLOCK, perhaps another solution would be to list in linux/pidfd.h
>> in the synopsis and say it is required to use PIDFD_NONBLOCK.
> 
> Yep, that's the kernel uapi header.  I didn't know glibc redistributes
> those.
> 
> Anyway, we should indeed include <linux/pidfd.h> for this macro.

The glibc provides the pidfd_open, pidfd_getfd, and pidfd_send_signal
since 2.36 [1][2][3], and pidfd_getpid since 2.39 [4].  It also provides the
pidfd_spawn and pidfd_spawp [5], which are similar to posix_spawn, but
return return a pidfd.

> 
>> Then, I also noticed that GNU libc now also provides the sys/pidfd.h
>> header with the definition of PIDFD_NONBLOCK, and prototypes for
>> pidfd_open, pidfd_send_signal, pidfd_getfd, and also a prototype for
>> pidfd_getpid that is an helper function that parses the "Pid:" field
>> from /proc/self/fdinfo/FD and currently does not have a man page.
> 
> Hmmm, I've CCed glibc for a question:  When you provide a macro like
> this one, without providing a syscall wrapper, should we include the
> glibc header or the kernel one?  Do you provide all kernel uapi macros,
> or just select ones?

For pidfd function we decided to add the function on sys/pidfd.h which
is a distinct header.  Maybe we should follow other kernel header 
integration and include it if existent and only define the required
macros if not existent (like we do on mount.h). 

> 
> As far as I understand (I have never tried to use it in a program),
> 
>   pid_t pid = pidfd_getfd(pidfd);
> 
> Is equivalent to the following command in shell:
> 
>   pid=$(grep -Pom1 '^Pid:\t\K.*' proc/self/fdinfo"$pidfd" || echo -1)

Yes, and it sets errno depending parsing and 'Pid:' value (you can check
on the pidfd_getfd documentation on glibc manual).


[1] https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=97f5d19c45799e3abedef771430b5562f1b8764f
[2] https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=32dd8c251a431c90451092653f0231a4ad2665e5
[3] https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=56cf9e8eec3bdc0ce44efeda373de9d6b825ea1e
[4] https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=e7190fc73dbc8a1f8f94f8ccacd9a190fa5e609c
[5] https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=0d6f9f626521678f330f8bfee89e1cdb7e2b1062

> 
>>
>> So probably the best solution is to just make the pidfd_open(2),
>> pidfd_send_signal(2), and pidfd_getfd(2) man pages tell users to include
>> sys/pidfd.h and call the GNU libc functions instead of including
>> sys/syscall.h and unistd.h and calling syscall(2) directly; now that
>> sys/pidfd.h exists.
> 
> Ahh, interesting.  I'm using glibc 2.38 and still don't have that one.
> It seems added in 2.39.  We can directly document that in
> pidfd_getfd(2).
> 
>> And maybe to also add a pidfd_getpid(3) man page for the new pidfd
>> helper function.
> 
> No, usually we document the glibc wrapper in man2, unless there's a big
> difference between the kernel syscall and the glibc wrapper.
> 
> Thanks for the detailed report!
> 
> Have a lovely day!
> Alex
> 
>>
>>
>> o/
>>  emanuele6
> 

Re: pidfd_open.2: PIDFD_NONBLOCK is not defined by the listed headers

[Alejandro Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5331 bytes --]

Hi Emanuele,

Do you have any updates of this patch?  Thanks!

Have a lovely day!
Alex

On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 08:35:48AM -0300, Adhemerval Zanella Netto wrote:
> 
> 
> On 20/05/24 05:53, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > Oops, I mistyped the glibc list.  Below is included the original email.
> > 
> > ---
> > 
> > On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 07:02:39AM GMT, Emanuele Torre wrote:
> >> Hello.
> > 
> > Hi Emanuele,
> > 
> >> pidfd_open(2) only lists sys/syscall.h and unistd.h in its SYNOPSYS:
> >>
> >>   SYNOPSIS
> >>          #include <sys/syscall.h>      /* Definition of SYS_* constants */
> >>          #include <unistd.h>
> >>
> >>          int syscall(SYS_pidfd_open, pid_t pid, unsigned int flags);
> >>
> >>          Note:  glibc provides no wrapper for pidfd_open(), necessitating
> >>          the use of syscall(2).
> >>
> >> Then it mentions PIDFD_NONBLOCK as one of its flags:
> >>
> >>   PIDFD_NONBLOCK (since Linux 5.10)
> >>          Return  a nonblocking file descriptor.  If the process referred
> >>          to by the file descriptor has not yet terminated, then  an  at‐
> >>          tempt to wait on the file descriptor using waitid(2) will imme‐
> >>          diately return the error EAGAIN rather than blocking.
> >>
> >> But PIDFD_NONBLOCK is not defined in any of the listed headers.
> > 
> > Hmmm.  Thanks!  We need to add its header.
> > 
> >> I have noticed that PIDFD_NONBLOCK is the same value as O_NONBLOCK,
> >> so perhaps this flag could be listed as
> >>
> >>   O_NONBLOCK or PIDFD_NONBLOCK (since Linux 5.10)
> >>
> >> like O_NDELAY and O_NONBLOCK in open.2.
> >>
> >> This way the user would know that O_NONBLOCK may be used instead of
> >> PIDFD_NONBLOCK if PIDFD_NONBLOCK is not available.
> > 
> > No.  That's an implementation detail, which shouldn't be abused.
> > 
> >> I have also noticed that GNU libc (in its linux-api-headers submodule)
> >> provides a linux/pidfd.h header that just defines PIDFD_NONBLOCK as
> >> O_NONBLOCK, perhaps another solution would be to list in linux/pidfd.h
> >> in the synopsis and say it is required to use PIDFD_NONBLOCK.
> > 
> > Yep, that's the kernel uapi header.  I didn't know glibc redistributes
> > those.
> > 
> > Anyway, we should indeed include <linux/pidfd.h> for this macro.
> 
> The glibc provides the pidfd_open, pidfd_getfd, and pidfd_send_signal
> since 2.36 [1][2][3], and pidfd_getpid since 2.39 [4].  It also provides the
> pidfd_spawn and pidfd_spawp [5], which are similar to posix_spawn, but
> return return a pidfd.
> 
> > 
> >> Then, I also noticed that GNU libc now also provides the sys/pidfd.h
> >> header with the definition of PIDFD_NONBLOCK, and prototypes for
> >> pidfd_open, pidfd_send_signal, pidfd_getfd, and also a prototype for
> >> pidfd_getpid that is an helper function that parses the "Pid:" field
> >> from /proc/self/fdinfo/FD and currently does not have a man page.
> > 
> > Hmmm, I've CCed glibc for a question:  When you provide a macro like
> > this one, without providing a syscall wrapper, should we include the
> > glibc header or the kernel one?  Do you provide all kernel uapi macros,
> > or just select ones?
> 
> For pidfd function we decided to add the function on sys/pidfd.h which
> is a distinct header.  Maybe we should follow other kernel header 
> integration and include it if existent and only define the required
> macros if not existent (like we do on mount.h). 
> 
> > 
> > As far as I understand (I have never tried to use it in a program),
> > 
> >   pid_t pid = pidfd_getfd(pidfd);
> > 
> > Is equivalent to the following command in shell:
> > 
> >   pid=$(grep -Pom1 '^Pid:\t\K.*' proc/self/fdinfo"$pidfd" || echo -1)
> 
> Yes, and it sets errno depending parsing and 'Pid:' value (you can check
> on the pidfd_getfd documentation on glibc manual).
> 
> 
> [1] https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=97f5d19c45799e3abedef771430b5562f1b8764f
> [2] https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=32dd8c251a431c90451092653f0231a4ad2665e5
> [3] https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=56cf9e8eec3bdc0ce44efeda373de9d6b825ea1e
> [4] https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=e7190fc73dbc8a1f8f94f8ccacd9a190fa5e609c
> [5] https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=0d6f9f626521678f330f8bfee89e1cdb7e2b1062
> 
> > 
> >>
> >> So probably the best solution is to just make the pidfd_open(2),
> >> pidfd_send_signal(2), and pidfd_getfd(2) man pages tell users to include
> >> sys/pidfd.h and call the GNU libc functions instead of including
> >> sys/syscall.h and unistd.h and calling syscall(2) directly; now that
> >> sys/pidfd.h exists.
> > 
> > Ahh, interesting.  I'm using glibc 2.38 and still don't have that one.
> > It seems added in 2.39.  We can directly document that in
> > pidfd_getfd(2).
> > 
> >> And maybe to also add a pidfd_getpid(3) man page for the new pidfd
> >> helper function.
> > 
> > No, usually we document the glibc wrapper in man2, unless there's a big
> > difference between the kernel syscall and the glibc wrapper.
> > 
> > Thanks for the detailed report!
> > 
> > Have a lovely day!
> > Alex
> > 
> >>
> >>
> >> o/
> >>  emanuele6
> > 

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]