Message 196043 - 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	gregory.p.smith, neologix, pitrou, sbt, vstinner
Date	2013-08-23.21:58:37
SpamBayes Score	-1.0
Marked as misclassified	Yes
Message-id	<CAH_1eM1DmHEwhzhJRtsr7zWGhQGAXgAWSiN-y9-mQrue3r1xeA@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to	<CAMpsgwZVZ015MtYzNB2dN-X2z--oVqOqdmrghxKmMB-_Hcb8_g@mail.gmail.com>

Content
> Close_fds is not supposed to close them? Yes, but some new fds might be open in the child process, e.g. for /dev/urandom. That's why it's better to check that this precise FD is closed. Of course, if the /dev/urandom FD gets assigned the same FD as the one provided by dup() in the parent, we're screwed, but that shouldn't happen (since /dev/urandom is already open in the parent).

> Close_fds is not supposed to close them?

Yes, but some new fds might be open in the child process, e.g. for /dev/urandom.
That's why it's better to check that this precise FD is closed. Of
course, if the /dev/urandom FD gets assigned the same FD as the one
provided by dup() in the parent, we're screwed, but that shouldn't
happen (since /dev/urandom is already open in the parent).

History
Date	User	Action	Args
2013-08-23 21:58:38	neologix	set	recipients: + neologix, gregory.p.smith, pitrou, vstinner, sbt
2013-08-23 21:58:38	neologix	link	issue18763 messages
2013-08-23 21:58:37	neologix	create