Re: Implement close-on-fork

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 04:01:07PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 02:15:44AM -0500, Nate Karstens wrote:
> > Series of 4 patches to implement close-on-fork. Tests have been
> > published to https://github.com/nkarstens/ltp/tree/close-on-fork.
> > 
> > close-on-fork addresses race conditions in system(), which
> > (depending on the implementation) is non-atomic in that it
> > first calls a fork() and then an exec().
> > 
> > This functionality was approved by the Austin Common Standards
> > Revision Group for inclusion in the next revision of the POSIX
> > standard (see issue 1318 in the Austin Group Defect Tracker).
> 
> What exactly the reasons are and why would we want to implement that?
> 
> Pardon me, but going by the previous history, "The Austin Group Says It's
> Good" is more of a source of concern regarding the merits, general sanity
> and, most of all, good taste of a proposal.
> 
> I'm not saying that it's automatically bad, but you'll have to go much
> deeper into the rationale of that change before your proposal is taken
> seriously.

https://www.mail-archive.com/austin-group-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg05324.html
might be useful