Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> writes: > Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> writes: > >> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Would the best endgame shape for this function be to open with >>> O_NOATIME (and retry without), and then add CLOEXEC with fcntl(2) >>> but ignoring an error from it, I guess? That would be the closest >>> to what we historically had, I would think. >> >> I think that's the best model. > > OK, so perhaps like this.
Hmph. This may not fly well in practice, though. To Unix folks, CLOEXEC is not a huge correctness issue. A child process may hold onto an open file descriptor a bit longer than the lifetime of the parent but as long as the child eventually exits, nothing is affected. Over there, things are different. The parent cannot even rename(2) or unlink(2) a file it created and closed while the child is still holding the file descriptor open and the lack of CLOEXEC will make the parent fail. I do not know how well fcntl(2) emulation works on Windows, but I would not be surprised if J6t or Dscho comes back and says that FD_CLOEXEC given to F_SETFD would not work while O_CLOEXEC given to open(2) does.
