Subject: Re: [PATCH] alternative to sys_indirect, part 1

From: Jakub Jelinek <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:44:41 -0400

On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 04:03:52PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > Every other property of a socket via accept() is inherited from the
> > > parent. Making one property different would be bizarre and ugly.
> > 
> > Implementing this would visibly change existing code and it would
> > actively violate POSIX.  Not a good idea.
> 
> POSIX has no interface for this new behaviour you propose so that is
> complete crap. The moment you use one of these features you stepped
> outside of the POSIX spec - and you know that. If there was an existing
> standard we wouldn't have a problem.

Doing:

int fd = socket (PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, 0);
fcntl (fd, F_SETFD, F_CLOEXEC);
...
int fd2 = accept (fd, addr, addrlen);

certainly doesn't use any of the new interfaces, yet if accept inherits
the CLOEXEC flag from the socket, would visibly change existing programs.

	Jakub