Davide Libenzi a écrit :
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Eric Dumazet wrote:
accept2(int fd, ...)
I don't see any reason to not have it inherit the non-sequential
characteristics of "fd".
pipe2(int *fds, int oflags);
I think pipe+sys_nonseqfd should be OK for those.
yes, but O_CLOEXEC/O_CLOFORK ?
I was refering to Uli wanting to close races on multi-threading apps doing a
fork() while a thread is doing :
fd = open()
<---- race here if another thread does a fork() ---->
fcntl( CLOEXEC)
eventfd2(int count, int oflags);
signalfd2(int ufd, sigset_t __user *user_mask, size_t sizemask, int oflags);
timerfd2(int ufd, int clockid, int flags,const struct itimerspec __user *utmr, int oflags) ...
Those I think we're still in time to change the interface. No?
Even if not, those are not perf-critical, so I think that
syscall+sys_nonseqfd is still fine.
Same point here, non a nonseqfd problem.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
