[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Openat without die
From: |
Jim Meyering |
Subject: |
Re: Openat without die |
Date: |
Tue, 11 Jan 2011 14:21:59 +0100 |
Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This two patches will allow to remove a xmalloc and bail out early in
> case of ENOMEM
>
> I plan to implement a API reusing openat_permissive()
>
> If openat_permissive cwd_errno is NULL use the slow but safe fork variant
> else use the fchdir variant
>
> Program that care could therefore use the more permissive variant
> (like for instance the critical fts without FTS_NOCHDIR)
Hi Bastien,
Before embarking on changes to (or duplication of) infrastructure like
the *at functions, please tell us about your motivation. Why do you care
about whether openat may abort under unusual circumstances --- and only
on systems that are old enough that they can be challenging portability
targets? As I tried to explain, there does not seem to be a clean way
to solve the problem, and besides, the target systems that would benefit
from this portability improvement are mostly old and dying: not supporting
POSIX-mandated *at functions is a good sign that they are not evolving.
> I program also to implement *at_permissive function
>
> What do you think about that?
- Openat without die, Bastien ROUCARIES, 2011/01/11
- Re: Openat without die,
Jim Meyering <=
- Re: Openat without die, Bastien ROUCARIES, 2011/01/11
- Re: Openat without die, Bruno Haible, 2011/01/11
- Re: Openat without die, Bastien ROUCARIES, 2011/01/11
- Re: Openat without die, Jim Meyering, 2011/01/11
- Re: Openat without die, Eric Blake, 2011/01/11
- Re: Openat without die, Bastien ROUCARIES, 2011/01/11
- Re: Openat without die, Paul Eggert, 2011/01/11
- Re: Openat without die, Eric Blake, 2011/01/11
- Re: Openat without die, Paul Eggert, 2011/01/11
- Re: Openat without die, Eric Blake, 2011/01/11