[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Openat without die

From: Bastien ROUCARIES
Subject: Re: Openat without die
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 18:05:59 +0100

On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Jim Meyering <address@hidden> wrote:
> Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
>> 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
> Is openat_permissive a variable, a cpp symbol?
> Is cwd_errno a global variable?
> Where would they be set?

it is a function in openat.c it is already defined....
>> Program that care could therefore use the more permissive variant
>> (like for instance the critical fts without FTS_NOCHDIR)
>> I program also to implement *at_permissive function
>> What do you think about that?
>> How could I easilly test this fallback under my quite recent debian ?
>> Does I need to compile under a qemu image of old os ? Where
>> could I find such an os ?
> If I understand your proposal, you'll have to make every *at function
> call fork on those less-functional systems (the ones lacking e.g., openat).
> How will that be feasible (wrt efficiency), in general?

As I have mentionned it will be safe but not efficient program that
does care about efficiency should call openat_permissive


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]