lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] alternative to sys_indirect, part 1
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 4:49 PM, Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> > * dup2() -- use fcntl(F_DUPFD) instead
>
> Wrong. You cannot implement dup2 with fcntl since the latter won't use
> a file descriptor which is already in use.

True. One could add a flag to fcntl() to provide that behavior.

> > So the alternative to sys_indirect(), at least for the purpose of
> > O_CLOEXEC and similar, would be to create 5 new system calls (or six,
> > if one finds the signalfd() hack too ugly, which perhaps it is; or 7
> > if one doesn't like Alan's suggestion for socket()
>
> Without changing the socket interfaces (plural, socketpair) there would

Yes, I overlooked socket pair()...

> have to be 7 new syscalls, with changing socket* to an IMO cleaner
> interface 9.
>
>
> Or we just add sys_indirect (which is also usable for other syscall
> extensions, not just the CLOEXEC stuff) and let userlevel (i.e., me)
> worry about adding new interfaces to libc. As you can see, for the more
> recent interfaces like signalfd I have already added an additional
> parameter so the number of interface changes would be reduced.
>
> Somebody please make a call and then let's go on with life. I don't
> care much either way anymore. I do hope nobody thinks this is an issue
> which can be completely ignored (see, e.g., the bug I pointed to the
> other day).

Since I had to go search, here it is again
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=443321


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-24 17:09    [W:0.046 / U:0.084 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site