-- > From: Poul-Henning Kamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>void setctty(char *name) { >> (void) revoke(name); >> if ((fd = open(name, O_RDWR)) == -1) { > Isn't there a pretty obvious race between the revoke() and the open() ? > Wouldn't it in fact make much more sense if revoke(2) was defined as > int revoke(int fd); /* kick everybody else off */ > and the code above would look like: >> if ((fd = open(name, O_RDWR)) == -1) { >> } >> (void) revoke(fd);
But, revoke() invalidates all descriptors for the named path, so any subsequent operations on the open file descriptor would fail, which defeats the purpose of open(). I think what's needed is some form of serialization around revoke() and open(). I'm not a master of the init code, but it may be that the code is inherently non-reentrant, so the original code would then be okay. Paul Paul A. Scott mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://skycoast.us/pscott/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message