On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 19:12 -0400, James Carlson wrote:
> I think that's slightly inferior: it requires an extra fd for no reason
> at all and thus adds an unnecessary failure mode. I like the close(0),
> open, dup2(0,1), dup2(0,2) model better. And closing 1 and 2 first is
> even better for (implausible) security reasons.
on the other hand, the {close(0); open(), dup2, dup2 } sequence is only
guaranteed to work as desired in a single-threaded process with no
signal handlers able to run. otherwise, a different thread or signal
handler could get in sideways between the close() and the open() and nab
fd 0.
- Bill
