Antoine Pitrou <pit...@free.fr> added the comment: > So, SOCK_CLOEXEC is available. > Note that I don't like the idea of falling back to FD_CLOEXEC since > it's not atomic, and some people might rely on this. > Can we close this issue?
Well, this is apparently a feature request for socketserver.TCPServer. I don't see any problem in adding a best-effort option to add the cloexec flag, possibly atomically, and fall back on FD_CLOEXEC. People who "rely on this" can only do it if their system supports it anyway. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue12107> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
