> Yes, that is exactly the issue, we want
> exec 3>whatever
> to set close-on-exec (by default) as typically fds created that way
> are just for the script to use, and shouldn't be passed through to
> children.
We do? Perhaps if this were just being designed now. But breaking
existing us
> Maybe you remember in the 6th end and before days [...]
I don't. My experience with anything Unixy started with BSD 4.1c, and
that only barely before 4.2 came out.
> This change was made to the NetBSD sh in Jan 2016. It is being
> complained about almost 9 years later. That speaks to large
Date:Wed, 6 Nov 2024 08:03:37 -0500 (EST)
From:Mouse
Message-ID: <202411061303.iaa03...@stone.rodents-montreal.org>
| But breaking existing use cases strikes me as a Very Bad Idea.
What existing use cases?
Passing random fds to unrelated (as in not part of a set o
I can understand that NetBSD's sh derives (unless set -o posix is given) from
SUS in cases where SUS documents brain-dead historical behaviour.
However, passing fd's opened by exec to commands called later on doesn't
appear obviously brain-dead to me.
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to have a c
