Kubilay Kocak <koobs.free...@gmail.com> added the comment:
> Would it be possible to modify FreeBSD to enable it by default? Or is there a > reason to not enable it by default? That's very unlikely to happen. I believe it was added as an opt-in feature for some linux compatibility situations. The correct solution is to use closefrom(2), as it is the optimal current solution, and in our case, safe to use. > Which patch? https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221700#c3 or > something else? Yep, that one. > It seems like closefrom() is available on: Per #8052 there was some concerns about closefrom(2) not being async-signal safe. [1] I can't speak to other implementations, but this is what I requested clarity from our FreeBSD developers on, and confirmed that our implementation is indeed safe. That is the reason why I thought scoping closefrom(2) to __FreeBSD__ may be warranted, just like like the linux specific bits in https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/61aa484a3e54 from #8052 But I'll leave the decision as to how its implemented (configure checkls, ifdef'd or not) in your capable hands. Summary: FreeBSD's closefrom(2) is safe to anywhere in Python where it needs to close a range of fd's, including the subprocess module. [1] https://bugs.python.org/issue8052#msg132307 ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue38061> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
