Re: [PATCH, HURD][RFC] hurdselect: Step7x, almost complete rewrite finished

[Svante Signell]

On Wed, 2013-02-13 at 00:08 +0100, Pino Toscano wrote:
> Alle mercoledì 13 febbraio 2013, Svante Signell ha scritto:
> > On Tue, 2013-02-12 at 23:52 +0100, Pino Toscano wrote:
> > > Alle martedì 12 febbraio 2013, Svante Signell ha scritto:
> > > >  * change the FD_SETSIZE upper value check to larger than or
> > > >  equal
> > > > 
> > > > from larger than.
> > > > (from POSIX definition of select:
> > > > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009604499/functions/select.h
> > > > tml )
> > > 
> > > It's
> > > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/select.ht
> > > ml
> > > 
> > >  actually, and it says:
> > > |[EINVAL]
> > > |
> > > |    The nfds argument is less than 0 or greater than FD_SETSIZE.
> > > 
> > > and not "greater or equal than", so it allows FD_SETSIZE.
> > > (And logically, if a fdset_t can contain at most FD_SETSIZE fd's,
> > > you need to allow FD_SETSIZE as maximum number of fd's.)
> > > 
> > > Please remove this change, which is wrong.
> > 
> > Then you have to convince the Linux man page and the python3.2
> > developers too. From python3.2:
> > ./Include/fileobject.h: #define _PyIsSelectable_fd(FD) (((FD) >= 0)
> > && ((FD) < FD_SETSIZE))
> 
> Feel free to open bugs about them, then.
> 

On the same page you have this (and in the old link)
The behavior of these macros is undefined if the fd argument is less
than 0 or greater than or equal to FD_SETSIZE, or if fd is not a valid
file descriptor, or if any of the arguments are expressions with
side-effects.