Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 04 Apr 2012 11:44:53 -0700 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] nextfd(2) |
| |
On 04/04/2012 09:31 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: >> >> OK, so what you're saying here is: >> >> Linux doesn't actually have a problem unless: >> 1. You use the library implementation of opendir/readdir/closedir; >> 2. You use a nonstandard malloc for the platform which doesn't >> correctly set up fork hooks (which I would consider a bug); > > Right. but I'm argue "correctly set up" term because SUS/POSIX don't > require it. > It is only a workaround of buggy userland in glibc. SUS still says you > can't > use opendir and typical userland people don't want ignore SUS as far as > possible.
Since you are comparing with a Linux-only system call, any suggestion that depends on SuS requirements as opposed to Linux requirements is irrelevant.
> > It can. but more ugly. no? >
And a new system call isn't? What planet are you on?
-hpa
| |