DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43965>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43965 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-12-04 13:05 ------- Please take a look at http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=38915: [4 Dec 6:43pm UTC] crescentfreshpot at yahoo dot com Just to add to the dialog, Apache 1.x seems to have tried to address the issue of leaked FDs itself. http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/CHANGES_1.3 says: Changes with Apache 1.3.28 *) Certain 3rd party modules would bypass the Apache API and not invoke ap_cleanup_for_exec() before creating sub-processes. To such a child process, Apache's file descriptors (lock fd's, log files, sockets) were accessible, allowing them direct access to Apache log file etc. Where the OS allows, we now add proactive close functions to prevent these file descriptors from leaking to the child processes. As far as I understand the above, apache thinks it can know when [mod_]php does a system-level popen() and cleanup the parent FDs before exec(). Is that actually possible? [4 Dec 7:14pm UTC] [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think that's exactly what FD_CLOEXEC does. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
