Paul Eggert wrote:
> > How about module 'fts'? Should the directory fds that it allocates also be
> > made O_CLOEXEC?
>
> Yes, I'd say so; I see little reason for a child process to continue an fts
> scan.
Done through this patch. In fact, you had already done most of the work
on 2017-08-12.
Br
On 5/27/20 11:43 AM, Bruno Haible wrote:
> How about module 'fts'? Should the directory fds that it allocates also be
> made O_CLOEXEC?
Yes, I'd say so; I see little reason for a child process to continue an fts
scan.
On Wed, May 27, 2020, 11:44 Bruno Haible wrote:
> The gnulib module 'open' supports O_CLOEXEC since 2017-08-14. We can use it
> to make multithreaded application that call fork() and exec() more robust.
>
> Here are proposed patches.
>
> How about module 'fts'? Should the directory fds that it al
On 2020-05-27 20:43, Bruno Haible wrote:
> How about module 'fts'? Should the directory fds that it allocates also be
> made O_CLOEXEC?
+1
I doubt that passing on those fds to any child is wanted/necessary.
At least that would be a bug for coreutils (rm,du,chmod,chgrp,chcon)
and findutils (find).
