Re: [PATCH] alternative to sys_indirect, part 1

[Jakub Jelinek]

On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 04:03:52PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > Every other property of a socket via accept() is inherited from the
> > > parent. Making one property different would be bizarre and ugly.
> > 
> > Implementing this would visibly change existing code and it would
> > actively violate POSIX.  Not a good idea.
> 
> POSIX has no interface for this new behaviour you propose so that is
> complete crap. The moment you use one of these features you stepped
> outside of the POSIX spec - and you know that. If there was an existing
> standard we wouldn't have a problem.

Doing:

int fd = socket (PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, 0);
fcntl (fd, F_SETFD, F_CLOEXEC);
...
int fd2 = accept (fd, addr, addrlen);

certainly doesn't use any of the new interfaces, yet if accept inherits
the CLOEXEC flag from the socket, would visibly change existing programs.

	Jakub
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/