Re: [PATCH] open: introduce O_NOSTD

2009-08-27 Thread Ulrich Drepper
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 15:55, Davide Libenzi wrote: > Can't the handling be done on close(), like (modulo some errno save/restore): No. You can have any file descriptor closed when the process is started. No close in the process with the special close.

Re: [PATCH] open: introduce O_NOSTD

2009-08-27 Thread Davide Libenzi
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009, Eric Blake wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > According to Davide Libenzi on 8/25/2009 3:53 PM: > >> Another solution is for the application to sanitize all newly-created > >> fds: GNU coreutils provides a wrapper open_safer, which does nothing > >>

Re: lib/exclude.c calls towlower() without checking for wideline support

2009-08-27 Thread Sergey Poznyakoff
Alan Hourihane ha escrit: > As the subject line says, and I end up with an unresolved symbol. Please try this patch: diff --git a/lib/exclude.c b/lib/exclude.c index 32f2a0a..00f3891 100644 --- a/lib/exclude.c +++ b/lib/exclude.c @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ #include #include #include +#include

Re: test-bitrotate failure on Solaris

2009-08-27 Thread Simon Josefsson
Bruno Haible writes: > Hi, > > On Solaris/x86, with SunPRO C 5.9, the test-bitrotate fails: > > test-bitrotate.c:227: assertion failed > FAIL: test-bitrotate > > The reason is that test-bitrotate.c:227 passes a 0 shift count to rotr64, > which is outside the specification of rotr64. > > I pro

Re: test-func failure on Solaris

2009-08-27 Thread Simon Josefsson
Bruno Haible writes: > On Solaris/x86, with SunPRO C 5.9, the test-func test fails. The reason > is that > sizeof __func__ > evaluates to 0. The compiler warns about it: > "test-func.c", line 40: warning: null dimension: sizeof() > > What to do? m4/func.m4 could defined __func__ to a dummy.

Re: [PATCH] open: introduce O_NOSTD

2009-08-27 Thread Florian Weimer
* Eric Blake: > int open_safer (const char *name, int flags, int mode) > { > int fd = open (name, flags | O_CLOEXEC, mode); > if (0 <= fd && fd <= 2) > { > int dup = fcntl (fd, ((flags & O_CLOEXEC) > ? F_DUPFD_CLOEXEC : F_DUPFD), 3); > int saved_errn

lib/exclude.c calls towlower() without checking for wideline support

2009-08-27 Thread Alan Hourihane
As the subject line says, and I end up with an unresolved symbol. Not sure what the right definition check to wrap that up in though. Thanks, Alan.

Re: [PATCH] open: introduce O_NOSTD

2009-08-27 Thread Ulrich Drepper
On 08/27/2009 06:54 AM, Eric Blake wrote: I hope that my example shows why doing it in the kernel is desirable - there is no safe way to keep the pre-O_CLOEXEC efficiency using just the library, but there IS a way to do it with kernel support: You're describing a very special case where the per

Re: [PATCH] open: introduce O_NOSTD

2009-08-27 Thread Eric Blake
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 According to Davide Libenzi on 8/25/2009 3:53 PM: >> Another solution is for the application to sanitize all newly-created >> fds: GNU coreutils provides a wrapper open_safer, which does nothing >> extra in the common case that open() returned 3 or lar

test-bitrotate failure on Solaris

2009-08-27 Thread Bruno Haible
Hi, On Solaris/x86, with SunPRO C 5.9, the test-bitrotate fails: test-bitrotate.c:227: assertion failed FAIL: test-bitrotate The reason is that test-bitrotate.c:227 passes a 0 shift count to rotr64, which is outside the specification of rotr64. I propose to remove that particular test: 20

test-func failure on Solaris

2009-08-27 Thread Bruno Haible
On Solaris/x86, with SunPRO C 5.9, the test-func test fails. The reason is that sizeof __func__ evaluates to 0. The compiler warns about it: "test-func.c", line 40: warning: null dimension: sizeof() What to do? m4/func.m4 could defined __func__ to a dummy. But that's too much damage IMO. Bett