From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34126)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <edgar.iglesias@gmail.com>) id 1VO4KG-0006G6-Qr
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 07:29:21 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <edgar.iglesias@gmail.com>) id 1VO4K8-0003D9-DZ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 07:29:12 -0400
Received: from mail-la0-x234.google.com ([2a00:1450:4010:c03::234]:34982)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <edgar.iglesias@gmail.com>) id 1VO4K8-0003Cz-5U
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 07:29:04 -0400
Received: by mail-la0-f52.google.com with SMTP id ev20so2346957lab.39
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 04:29:02 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 13:28:54 +0200
From: "Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.iglesias@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130923112854.GC3076@zapo.xilinx.com>
References: <1379336886-14715-1-git-send-email-edgar.iglesias@gmail.com>
	<20130923093710.GA13144@afflict.kos.to>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20130923093710.GA13144@afflict.kos.to>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] linux-user: Emulate SOCK_CLOEXEC/NONBLOCK
	if unavailable
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@iki.fi>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 12:37:10PM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
> Hi,

Hi Riku,

> 
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 03:08:06PM +0200, edgar.iglesias@gmail.com wrote:
> > From: "Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.iglesias@gmail.com>
> > 
> > If the host lacks support for SOCK_CLOEXEC or SOCK_NONBLOCK,
> > try to emulate them with fcntl() FD_CLOEXEC and O_NONBLOCK.
> 
> Last time emulating CLOEXEC with fcntl was discussed, the idea
> was rejected[1]. The whole point of CLOEXEC flag is guarantee
> race free open, which when implemented this way it is no longer.
> 
> It is better to tell the userspace that atomic operation is not
> available and let the userspace app/library to cope with that,
> than give the application false sense of safety.

Agreed, I'll send a v2 that EINVALs on lack of SOCK_CLOEXEC.
My primary concern is to avoid the build error of qemu.

Thanks,
Edgar