[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230901165553.3755a1c7@ncopa-desktop.lan>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2023 16:55:53 +0200
From: Natanael Copa <ncopa@...inelinux.org>
To: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add close_range() syscall wrapper
On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 09:57:34 -0400
Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote:
> > +int close_range(unsigned int first, unsigned int last, int flags)
> > +{
> > + return __syscall_ret(syscall(SYS_close_range, first, last, flags));
> > +}
> > --
> > 2.42.0
>
> This is double-processing errno. You need either return
> __syscall_ret(__syscall(...)) (note the second __) or just return
> syscall(...) (the syscall macro without __ automatically does the
> __syscall_ret).
Ah, ok, I'll send a v2 patch.
> Aside from that, I think there's a question whether, if we support
> this as a function rather than leaving it to the application to use
> the syscall, we should provide a fallback for ENOSYS. I'm not sure,
> but it's something that should be considered before adding it.
It was mentioned earlier that CPython expects close_range() to
async-safe, and that glibc does not provide fallback. I would prefer
that musl does not provide fallback.
https://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2022/08/18/4
-nc
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
