This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] [BZ #18433] Check file access/existence before forking.
- From: navid Rahimi <rahimi dot nv at gmail dot com>
- To: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2015 01:03:21 +0430
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] [BZ #18433] Check file access/existence before forking.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <55F19819 dot 3010601 at gmail dot com> <20150911182249 dot GD640 at vapier> <CAOUBrm3me5L+9XxRz5-a+vGURKzD4Z9DxJWfx2GpSjL6x8ywhw at mail dot gmail dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1509111955160 dot 14056 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 12:28 AM, Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Sep 2015, navid Rahimi wrote:
> You can't assume that pipe2 is supported unless __ASSUME_PIPE2 is defined.
> It might be an ENOSYS stub, or it might be unsupported at runtime because
> the kernel isn't recent enough. In either case, an ENOSYS error from
> pipe2 must not result in such an error from posix_spawn.
> Joseph S. Myers
> joseph@codesourcery.com
Freebsd uses vfork (and its blocking nature for parent process) for
implementation of posix_spawn , but I have found cert article about
not using vfork
https://www.securecoding.cert.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=1703954
pipes was more reliable in overall sight (in my opinion, because I
have seen so much people complaining about vfork) , but I can
implement another patch which fixes this bug with using vfork.
But I don't know should I use vfork ?