Would it be unreasonable for pfctl_restore_limits() close(dev) and then dev = -1?
Then the one-shot behaviour is encoded in the function. It is still a bad idea to double-register it, tho. The existing logic suspicious.
Would it be unreasonable for pfctl_restore_limits() close(dev) and then dev = -1?
Then the one-shot behaviour is encoded in the function. It is still a bad idea to double-register it, tho. The existing logic suspicious.