Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> So O_NOCTTY is definitely worthwhile, if only to avoid >> exposure for the time between an open and close of /dev/tty, >> assuming the process in question already had no controlling terminal. >> Right? > > That's the basic idea, but I'm afraid it's a bit more complicated than > that. The process is exposed even after it closes the terminal, since > it doesn't relinquish the controlling terminal even after it closes > the corresponding file descriptor (certainly if other processes have
Your use of `processes' means `processes in the same process group', right? Which means the exposure is still pretty limited. > the terminal open -- even via an independent descriptor -- and on some > systems not even when all processes close all their file descriptors > that access that terminal). > > It is tempting to think that we should use O_NOCTTY everywhere we open > a file, but I don't think that's right. For one thing, POSIX doesn't > allow it. I suspect it's more accurate to say that we should > generally use O_NOCTTY when we're opening a file for a reason other > than to read() or write() it. I agree. Thanks. _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
