From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54DDEC55185 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 15:18:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2342320774 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 15:18:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="aKOjeJ0E" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726294AbgDVPSa (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Apr 2020 11:18:30 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:53370 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725779AbgDVPS3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Apr 2020 11:18:29 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:e::133]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52849C03C1A9; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 08:18:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version :References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=pYMMSN8qhxK9Rkme8UcFyi4WlSIE2Qxdgi21qfoUXzU=; b=aKOjeJ0EnyyUBEUDG+g8uMBCMN Z6szyzHcyTD5j+iI6i8Om8ipuaiO+0Rumq3HPRgleVpRRmsizL57viIfxH1LKC65p0/Bx4zJQRr5n shg+ispNIDtDBWB0bgwc9NNI6SzcUuo36IwRRylxJD6XinT+a/FnShF7L7vgJ+qQ6ym9ZYNR36Mcp JeXuW2v9NwqFxRSKlztPqjlLLBJBMokazFbW2ZCTdH5w70MJzwSnjAHwE/FokhDD8xoFAuoXFjy/i zHRC2a8lb/dwUwA4i8pZrk0jgufnPSR/9R4K0P3W8AQl6GxDBa6Xq8q/fW2MXv5+6PUhHh4xsuqtt jaSUEjXg==; Received: from willy by bombadil.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1jRH8h-0007XY-UX; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 15:18:15 +0000 Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 08:18:15 -0700 From: Matthew Wilcox To: Al Viro Cc: Nate Karstens , Jeff Layton , "J. Bruce Fields" , Arnd Bergmann , Richard Henderson , Ivan Kokshaysky , Matt Turner , "James E.J. Bottomley" , Helge Deller , "David S. Miller" , Jakub Kicinski , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Changli Gao Subject: Re: Implement close-on-fork Message-ID: <20200422151815.GT5820@bombadil.infradead.org> References: <20200420071548.62112-1-nate.karstens@garmin.com> <20200422150107.GK23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200422150107.GK23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 04:01:07PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 02:15:44AM -0500, Nate Karstens wrote: > > Series of 4 patches to implement close-on-fork. Tests have been > > published to https://github.com/nkarstens/ltp/tree/close-on-fork. > > > > close-on-fork addresses race conditions in system(), which > > (depending on the implementation) is non-atomic in that it > > first calls a fork() and then an exec(). > > > > This functionality was approved by the Austin Common Standards > > Revision Group for inclusion in the next revision of the POSIX > > standard (see issue 1318 in the Austin Group Defect Tracker). > > What exactly the reasons are and why would we want to implement that? > > Pardon me, but going by the previous history, "The Austin Group Says It's > Good" is more of a source of concern regarding the merits, general sanity > and, most of all, good taste of a proposal. > > I'm not saying that it's automatically bad, but you'll have to go much > deeper into the rationale of that change before your proposal is taken > seriously. https://www.mail-archive.com/austin-group-l@opengroup.org/msg05324.html might be useful