Message 136879 - Python tracker

➜

This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author	neologix
Recipients	Christophe.Devriese, gregory.p.smith, nadeem.vawda, neologix, pitrou
Date	2011-05-25.17:59:30
SpamBayes Score	4.903974e-07
Marked as misclassified	No
Message-id	<1306346371.26.0.304075036958.issue12107@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to

Content
> Well, this is apparently a feature request for socketserver.TCPServer. Honestly, I'm not sure what this request is about. The original request seemed to imply this should be made the default. I don't agree, and think this should be made optional. Also, the title is much more general: "TCP listening sockets created without FD_CLOEXEC flag". > I don't see any problem in adding a best-effort option to add the cloexec flag, possibly atomically, and fall back on FD_CLOEXEC. > People who "rely on this" can only do it if their system supports it anyway. I wasn't clear. I thought we were talking about the socket constructor. In that case, yes, we could do that for socketserver, but with an explicit warning (because with a cloexec flag to a constructor, people will unconsciously expect it to behave like SOCK_CLOEXEC and be atomic). > Speaking of which, the os module could expose the pipe2() function. I'll work on a patch.

> Well, this is apparently a feature request for socketserver.TCPServer.

Honestly, I'm not sure what this request is about.
The original request seemed to imply this should be made the default. I don't agree, and think this should be made optional. Also, the title is much more general: "TCP listening sockets created without FD_CLOEXEC flag".

> I don't see any problem in adding a best-effort option to add the cloexec flag, possibly atomically, and fall back on FD_CLOEXEC.
> People who "rely on this" can only do it if their system supports it anyway.

I wasn't clear. I thought we were talking about the socket constructor. In that case, yes, we could do that for socketserver, but with an explicit warning (because with a cloexec flag to a constructor, people will unconsciously expect it to behave like SOCK_CLOEXEC and be atomic).

> Speaking of which, the os module could expose the pipe2() function.

I'll work on a patch.

History
Date	User	Action	Args
2011-05-25 17:59:31	neologix	set	recipients: + neologix, gregory.p.smith, pitrou, nadeem.vawda, Christophe.Devriese
2011-05-25 17:59:31	neologix	set	messageid: <1306346371.26.0.304075036958.issue12107@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2011-05-25 17:59:30	neologix	link	issue12107 messages
2011-05-25 17:59:30	neologix	create