On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 02:47:21PM -0700, Ansis Atteka wrote:
>> Just curious. Do you think it would make sense to use ppoll() or
>> signal_fd() instead of "self pipe trick" to handle signals? Not sure
>> about portability, but it seems that ppol
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 02:47:21PM -0700, Ansis Atteka wrote:
> Just curious. Do you think it would make sense to use ppoll() or
> signal_fd() instead of "self pipe trick" to handle signals? Not sure
> about portability, but it seems that ppoll() at least is POSIX
> compliant and was introduced in
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:32:50PM -0700, Ansis Atteka wrote:
>> Between fork() and execvp() calls in the process_start()
>> function both child and parent processes share the same
>> file descriptors. This means that, if a child process
>> rec
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:32:50PM -0700, Ansis Atteka wrote:
> Between fork() and execvp() calls in the process_start()
> function both child and parent processes share the same
> file descriptors. This means that, if a child process
> received a signal during this time interval, then it could
>
Between fork() and execvp() calls in the process_start()
function both child and parent processes share the same
file descriptors. This means that, if a child process
received a signal during this time interval, then it could
potentially write data to a shared file descriptor.
One such example is
