From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI,
	RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Received: (qmail 24165 invoked from network); 18 Aug 2022 14:55:07 -0000
Received: from second.openwall.net (193.110.157.125)
  by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 18 Aug 2022 14:55:07 -0000
Received: (qmail 14281 invoked by uid 550); 18 Aug 2022 14:55:03 -0000
Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:musl@lists.openwall.com>
List-Help: <mailto:musl-help@lists.openwall.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:musl-unsubscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:musl-subscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-ID: <musl.lists.openwall.com>
Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Received: (qmail 14246 invoked from network); 18 Aug 2022 14:55:02 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2022 17:54:50 +0300
From: Alexey Izbyshev <izbyshev@ispras.ru>
To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Cc: Guilherme Janczak <guilherme.janczak@yandex.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAA2zVHruVQQYfmiYCpVJ0ha5nX_mvwoCNBX9x6qO79WUDDU_QA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20220810130311.dwk7zxwkz32igrdm@yandex.com>
 <20220818003531.GG7074@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <CM92NYQ1DQQE.1N2K6EM8OK70U@mussels>
 <85f359ccc0304862e92c39f58b08b770@ispras.ru>
 <CAA2zVHruVQQYfmiYCpVJ0ha5nX_mvwoCNBX9x6qO79WUDDU_QA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.4.4
Message-ID: <cff701355849519f2d071551caa86a32@ispras.ru>
X-Sender: izbyshev@ispras.ru
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [musl] [PATCH] add close_range() syscall wrapper

On 2022-08-18 17:42, James Y Knight wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 6:40 AM Alexey Izbyshev <izbyshev@ispras.ru>
> wrote:
> 
>> Glibc doesn't implement a fallback and explicitly says it in the
>> manual.
>> Using a different implementation in musl seems undesirable.
> 
> True. I would note, however, that glibc also implements another
> function "closefrom", which first calls close_range, and if it fails,
> falls back to iterating /proc/self/fd.

Yes, but glibc's closefrom() *aborts* if there is no /proc, so it's not 
suitable for all use cases (and would not be suitable for CPython's 
subprocess or "os.closerange()", for instance).

Alexey