From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1M1i4d-0004vo-J7
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 May 2009 10:26:15 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1M1i4c-0004ux-0a
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 May 2009 10:26:15 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=56412 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1M1i4b-0004us-SH
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 May 2009 10:26:13 -0400
Received: from naru.obs2.net ([84.20.150.76]:55190)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <nchip@kos.to>) id 1M1i4b-0002qK-GX
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 May 2009 10:26:13 -0400
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 17:26:05 +0300
From: Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@iki.fi>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] linux-user: implement pipe2 syscall
Message-ID: <20090506142605.GA27875@kos.to>
References: <20090505133048.GA29646@kos.to>
	<20090506110832.GC23364@shareable.org>
	<20090506120256.GA21149@kos.to>
	<200905061323.29083.paul@codesourcery.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200905061323.29083.paul@codesourcery.com>
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 01:23:28PM +0100, Paul Brook wrote:
> On Wednesday 06 May 2009, Riku Voipio wrote:
> > On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 12:08:32PM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> > > But it's not a bug to call execve(), or fork() then execve(), in
> > > another thread at the same time as descriptors are being created.
> > > Those calls scan the whole file descriptor table, and look at the
> > > FD_CLOEXEC flags.
> >
> > Now this discussion would be much more useful if qemu was actually
> > properly threadsafe to begin with...

> For usermode emulation it is.

Ok, I was under impression that threads in qemu linux-user were still
considered broken.

I'll see what would be the best way handle the CLOEXEC flags in a safe
manner.