On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 at 13:04, Oğuz <oguzismailuy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, February 8, 2025, Martin D Kealey <mar...@kurahaupo.gen.nz> > wrote: >> >> ls -mU /proc/$$/fd >> ls -log /proc/$$/fd/99 >> > > They should appear in the output of `ls -l /proc/self/fd' in order for it > to be considered leakage > <sarcasm> Oh gosh, I'm so glad you've corrected me. </sarcasm> My use of the term ‘filedescriptor leak’ is entirely consistent with the term ‘memory leak’; something that happens within a single process: a resource that escapes from the code that is supposed to be managing it, and is not reclaimed even when the resource comes under pressure. Yes there are other kinds of leaks involving multiple processes, and for filedescriptors that is usually a bigger concern as it allows files to be accessed by programs that normally would be forbidden from doing so. I'm not claiming that *this* issue is *that* kind of leak. But if you insist that “leak” isn't the right term in this context, feel free to suggest a more appropriate term. -Martin
