On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Jim Meyering <j...@meyering.net> 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 Bastien
