Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 5 May 1999 11:00:13 -0400 (edt) | From | Sam Roberts <> | Subject | Re: FD_CLFORK or equivalent? |
| |
On Wed, 5 May 1999, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 08:28:14 -0400 (EDT) > From: "Richard B. Johnson" <root@chaos.analogic.com> > To: Bernd Eckenfels <ecki@lina.inka.de> > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu > Subject: Re: FD_CLFORK or equivalent? > > On Wed, 5 May 1999, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > > > In article <Pine.QNX.3.96.990504112943.30630A-100000@sam.cogent.ca> you wrote: > > > If not, before I hack one in as a private kernel patch, is > > > there any reason to add such a mechanism, perhaps a FD_CLOFORK > > > flag, and does anybody have suggestions on where to start? > > > > A reason would be, that this is a good way of making daemons. Since closing > > all fds from 0-255 is not enough on systems where high-numberes fds can be > > open. > > > But... The 'standard' way is: > > fd = open("/", O_RDONLY); > while (fd >= 0) (void)close(fd--);
Which will completely fail if the daemon opened a few files, then closed fds 0-2.
> Cheers, > Dick Johnson > ***** FILE SYSTEM WAS MODIFIED ***** > Penguin : Linux version 2.2.6 on an i686 machine (400.59 BogoMips). > Warning : It's hard to remain at the trailing edge of technology. > > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ >
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |