Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author
Re: PATCH: 3.0.6/3.1.6: Re: All sorts of file-descriptor strangeness
- X-seq: zsh-workers 8192
- From: "Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: PATCH: 3.0.6/3.1.6: Re: All sorts of file-descriptor strangeness
- Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 21:11:47 +0000
- In-reply-to: <E11aMyg-0008VI-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
- References: <E11aMyg-0008VI-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <E11aNAG-0000CZ-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Oct 10, 6:53pm, Zefram wrote:
} Subject: Re: PATCH: Re: PATCH: no more fd mixups
}
} Bart Schaefer wrote:
} >Here's a tweak to Zefram's patch to [...] test
} >that the descriptor is in the fdtable[] array,
}
} At the moment, coprocess fds do not get passed on to children, but they
} are explicitly marked as public in fdtable[], and hence after your patch
} they are dupable by number.
Yes, that's true. While we're on the topic:
zagzig[21] coproc tr a-z A-Z
[1] 2510
zagzig[22] exec 5<&p
zagzig[23] ls -l /proc/self/fd
total 0
lrwx------ 1 schaefer schaefer 64 Oct 10 13:48 0 -> [0301]:11232
lrwx------ 1 schaefer schaefer 64 Oct 10 13:48 1 -> [0301]:11232
lrwx------ 1 schaefer schaefer 64 Oct 10 13:48 2 -> [0301]:11232
lr-x------ 1 schaefer schaefer 64 Oct 10 13:48 3 -> [0001]:164691976
lr-x------ 1 schaefer schaefer 64 Oct 10 13:48 5 -> [0000]:12364629
Should descriptor 5 have been passed on to "ls" in this manner? (Note
that /proc/self/fd are the fds of "ls" at that point, not of the shell.)
} I *think* all that needs to change is to remove the line
}
} fdtable[coprocin] = fdtable[coprocout] = 0;
I'm concerned about that because there are other places where the fds with
nonzero entries in fdtable[] are either closed, or deliberately kept open,
in circumstances that may not apply to the coproc. In particular, I think
it would break this:
coproc foo
bar <(baz <&p)
Probably it's better to just extend the test we've already tweaked twice
now, so that it explicitly tests the coproc fds as well.
Index: exec.c
===================================================================
@@ -1671,7 +1671,10 @@
case MERGEOUT:
if (fn->fd2 < 10)
closemn(mfds, fn->fd2);
- if (fn->fd2 > 9 && fdtable[fn->fd2]) {
+ if (fn->fd2 > 9 &&
+ (fdtable[fn->fd2] ||
+ fn->fd2 == coprocin ||
+ fn->fd2 == coprocout)) {
fil = -1;
errno = EBADF;
} else {
--
Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author