[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1697634.l5GBiYWEig@omega>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 18:58:30 +0100
From: Bruno Haible <bruno@...sp.org>
To: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: insufficient checking in posix_spawn_file_actions_add{open,dup2}
Rich Felker wrote:
> I'm not convinced that the standard as written
> requires any comparison against sysconf(_SC_OPEN_MAX). Is there a
> general rule somewhere that {x_MAX} in the text implies a requirement
> to use the dynamic runtime value if x_MAX is undefined but there's a
> corresponding _SC_x_MAX?
As far as I understand, [1] defines the meaning of {OPEN_MAX}, and [2]
says that {OPEN_MAX} is sysconf(_SC_OPEN_MAX).
Also, [2] says
"sysconf(_SC_OPEN_MAX) may return different values before and after a
call to setrlimit() which changes the RLIMIT_NOFILE soft limit."
Bruno
[1] https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/limits.h.html
[2] https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/sysconf.html
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.
