From: Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>
To: "Érico Nogueira" <ericonr@disroot.org>
Cc: musl@lists.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [musl] [PATCH] remove extraneous syscall from fopen(3)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2022 14:16:09 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220815181608.GY7074@brightrain.aerifal.cx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CM6SQ03E3UYV.3U3YIO6BTUIKU@mussels>
On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 02:58:40PM -0300, Érico Nogueira wrote:
> On Mon Aug 15, 2022 at 2:54 PM -03, Rich Felker wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 02:50:21PM -0300, Érico Nogueira wrote:
> > > the __fdopen() call afterwards will set the close-on-exec flag with the
> > > same syscall if "e" was specified in mode
> > > ---
> > > src/stdio/fopen.c | 2 --
> > > 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/src/stdio/fopen.c b/src/stdio/fopen.c
> > > index e1b91e12..22b72edf 100644
> > > --- a/src/stdio/fopen.c
> > > +++ b/src/stdio/fopen.c
> > > @@ -20,8 +20,6 @@ FILE *fopen(const char *restrict filename, const char *restrict mode)
> > >
> > > fd = sys_open(filename, flags, 0666);
> > > if (fd < 0) return 0;
> > > - if (flags & O_CLOEXEC)
> > > - __syscall(SYS_fcntl, fd, F_SETFD, FD_CLOEXEC);
> > >
> > > f = __fdopen(fd, mode);
> > > if (f) return f;
> > > --
> > > 2.37.2
> >
> > See commit 7765706c0584ed4a30e0b7a3ada742e490ef02b0
>
> If the relevant part of that commit is that the flag is added
> immediately after, would moving the SYS_fcntl call in __fdopen to the
> top of the functon be acceptable?
Oh, I missed that it also happens in __fdopen from the 'e' being
present, and misunderstood your patch as just removing the fallback
entirely.
No, it's not acceptable to move the fcntl in __fdopen above the malloc
because it would make fdopen modify the fd status on failure. I guess
it's questionable whether we care "how soon" after the open it happens
-- either way this is not a thread-safe fallback precluding fd leak on
old/broken kernels. But since malloc may be application-provided,
failure to set it before the malloc like we're doing now would be a
"worse behavior" in some sense, exposing the incorrect fd state to a
non-multithreaded application. So I'm not sure if it's a good idea to
change this or not. Do you have reason to believe it's affecting
performance in real-world usage?
Rich
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-08-15 18:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-08-15 17:50 Érico Nogueira
2022-08-15 17:54 ` Rich Felker
2022-08-15 17:58 ` Érico Nogueira
2022-08-15 18:16 ` Rich Felker [this message]
2022-08-15 18:31 ` Érico Nogueira
2022-08-15 18:57 ` Rich Felker
2022-08-20 8:49 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2022-08-20 8:52 ` Szabolcs Nagy
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20220815181608.GY7074@brightrain.aerifal.cx \
--to=dalias@libc.org \
--cc=ericonr@disroot.org \
--cc=musl@lists.openwall.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.vuxu.org/mirror/musl/
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).