[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141101220708.GI10829@port70.net>
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 23:07:08 +0100
From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Add login_tty
* Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> [2014-11-01 17:45:03 -0400]:
> >
> > I still don't understand how dup2 can fail when fd 0/1/2 are not open in
> > the parent. AFAIU, limits on the number of open fds are imposed by an
> > upper bound on the value of any fd. For the dup2 calls we know that the
> > newfds are certainly within the limits.
>
> Indeed, looking at the kernel code, I don't see any error paths where
> this operation could fail. I had figured some allocations might be
> needed to represent the new fd in the fd table, but it seems not. So
> the current code is probably unnecessary.
>
i think with seccomp syscall filtering anything can fail
although libc probably dont have to take that into account
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
