Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:44:41 -0400 | From | Jakub Jelinek <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] alternative to sys_indirect, part 1 |
| |
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 04:03:52PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > > Every other property of a socket via accept() is inherited from the > > > parent. Making one property different would be bizarre and ugly. > > > > Implementing this would visibly change existing code and it would > > actively violate POSIX. Not a good idea. > > POSIX has no interface for this new behaviour you propose so that is > complete crap. The moment you use one of these features you stepped > outside of the POSIX spec - and you know that. If there was an existing > standard we wouldn't have a problem.
Doing:
int fd = socket (PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, 0); fcntl (fd, F_SETFD, F_CLOEXEC); ... int fd2 = accept (fd, addr, addrlen);
certainly doesn't use any of the new interfaces, yet if accept inherits the CLOEXEC flag from the socket, would visibly change existing programs.
Jakub
| |