Am 26.07.2012 05:57, schrieb Corey Bryant:
On 07/25/2012 03:43 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 07/23/2012 07:08 AM, Corey Bryant wrote:
+int monitor_fdset_get_fd(Monitor *mon, int64_t fdset_id, int flags)
+{
+ mon_fdset_t *mon_fdset;
+ mon_fdset_fd_t *mon_fdset_fd;
+ int mon_fd_flags;
+
+ if (!mon) {
+ errno = ENOENT;
+ return -1;
+ }
+
+ QLIST_FOREACH(mon_fdset, &mon->fdsets, next) {
+ if (mon_fdset->id != fdset_id) {
+ continue;
+ }
+ QLIST_FOREACH(mon_fdset_fd, &mon_fdset->fds, next) {
+ if (mon_fdset_fd->removed) {
+ continue;
+ }
+
+ mon_fd_flags = fcntl(mon_fdset_fd->fd, F_GETFL);
+ if (mon_fd_flags == -1) {
+ return -1;
This says we fail on the first fcntl() failure, instead of trying other
fds in the set. Granted, an fcntl() failure is probably the sign of a
bigger bug (such as closing an fd at the wrong point in time), so I
guess trying to go on doesn't make much sense once we already know we
are hosed.
I think I'll stick with it the way it is. If fcntl() fails we might
have a tainted fd set so I think we should fail.
The alternative would be s/return 1/continue/, right? I think either way
is acceptable.
+ }
+
+ switch (flags & O_ACCMODE) {
+ case O_RDWR:
+ if ((mon_fd_flags & O_ACCMODE) == O_RDWR) {
+ return mon_fdset_fd->fd;
+ }
+ break;
+ case O_RDONLY:
+ if ((mon_fd_flags & O_ACCMODE) == O_RDONLY) {
+ return mon_fdset_fd->fd;
+ }
+ break;
Do we want to allow the case where the caller asked for O_RDONLY, but
the set only has O_RDWR? After all, the caller is getting a compatible
subset of what the set offers.
I don't see a problem with it.
I would require exact matches like you implemented, in order to prevent
damage if we ever had a bug that writes to a read-only file. I believe
it also makes the semantics clearer and the code simpler, while it
shouldn't make much of a difference for clients.
Kevin