From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: tromey@redhat.com
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: RFA: close-on-exec internal file descriptors
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2008 08:14:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <umyf9n2la.fsf@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m3skp2w32i.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
> From: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
> Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:38:13 -0700
>
> This patch fixes this problem by introducing new wrapper functions
> which create close-on-exec file descriptors. Then, these functions
> are used everywhere in gdb. After this patch, these wrapper functions
> should be used in all new code as well.
Thanks.
> opsy. gdb /tmp/r
> [...]
> (gdb) shell ls -l /proc/$$/fd
> total 0
> lrwx------ 1 tromey tromey 64 2008-12-05 17:10 0 -> /dev/pts/1
> lrwx------ 1 tromey tromey 64 2008-12-05 17:10 1 -> /dev/pts/1
> lrwx------ 1 tromey tromey 64 2008-12-05 17:10 2 -> /dev/pts/1
> lr-x------ 1 tromey tromey 64 2008-12-05 17:10 3 -> pipe:[1100229]
> l-wx------ 1 tromey tromey 64 2008-12-05 17:10 4 -> pipe:[1100229]
> lr-x------ 1 tromey tromey 64 2008-12-05 17:10 5 -> /proc/8096/fd
>
> I believe those 'pipe' entries are from the call to pipe in
> linux-nat.c:linux_nat_set_async.
Are you saying that the problem is specific to Linux native targets?
If so, why the solution invades general source files such as remote.c,
ser-tcp.c, ui-file.c, source.c and even remote-mips.c?
> I chose to take advantage of the new glibc flags like O_CLOEXEC when
> they are available.
Relying on glibc is OK for GNU/Linux, but you seem to be modifying
files that have no relation to the Linux native builds. Does that
mean the non-glibc builds that don't have the support you are relying
on will still leak descriptors?
> +FILE *
> +fopen_cloexec (const char *path, const char *mode)
> +{
> +#ifdef O_CLOEXEC
> + /* We assume that O_CLOEXEC also implies the availability of the "e"
> + flag to fopen. */
> + char new_mode[20];
> + strcpy (new_mode, mode);
> + strcat (new_mode, "e");
> + return fopen (path, new_mode);
Can we do something more safe than this arbitrary [20] limitation?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-12-06 8:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-12-06 0:39 Tom Tromey
2008-12-06 8:14 ` Eli Zaretskii [this message]
2008-12-06 15:58 ` Tom Tromey
2008-12-06 16:52 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2008-12-06 17:05 ` Eli Zaretskii
2008-12-06 16:54 ` Eli Zaretskii
2008-12-06 15:26 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2008-12-06 15:59 ` Tom Tromey
2008-12-06 15:42 ` Mark Kettenis
2008-12-06 22:06 ` Tom Tromey
2008-12-07 19:26 ` Mark Kettenis
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=umyf9n2la.fsf@gnu.org \
--to=eliz@gnu.org \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=tromey@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox