From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/13998 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general,gmane.comp.lib.gnulib.bugs Subject: Re: Re: posix_spawn_file_actions_add* functions on musl libc Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2019 17:38:01 -0400 Message-ID: <20190324213801.GT23599@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <17480807.kbxdrRNLtY@omega> <20190324141658.GR23599@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <1764808.lGQ7o5Mx7G@omega> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="185563"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: bug-gnulib@gnu.org, musl@lists.openwall.com To: Bruno Haible Original-X-From: musl-return-14014-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sun Mar 24 22:38:29 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by blaine.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1h8Aoy-000m5U-JJ for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Sun, 24 Mar 2019 22:38:24 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 32680 invoked by uid 550); 24 Mar 2019 21:38:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Original-Received: (qmail 32617 invoked from network); 24 Mar 2019 21:38:21 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1764808.lGQ7o5Mx7G@omega> Original-Sender: Rich Felker Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:13998 gmane.comp.lib.gnulib.bugs:40231 Archived-At: On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 07:23:16PM +0100, Bruno Haible wrote: > Hi Rich, > > > -- it would preclude advance creation of a file actions object which > > will open or dup onto high fd numbers at a later time after the rlimit > > has been increased. > > This is a highly theoretical use-case, isn't it? > > If you think POSIX should not specify things the way it does, please > report it to the Austin Group. If you read the rest of my email beyond the 2.5 lines quoted above, I said it's not clear to me that POSIX requires what you think it does in this case. If you disagree with that, we should open a request for interpretation. Rich