On 2022/11/14 11:14:39 +0100, Alexander Klimov <grandmas...@al2klimov.de> wrote:
> On 14.11.22 10:34, Omar Polo wrote:
> > anyway, with the unveil/pledge == -1 bit fixed the port is ok to me
> I've pushed it. (But I don't understand why it's an actual problem. It's
> a convention like execpromises=NULL and no unveil(NULL,NULL), right?)
No, it's because it's documented as such
RETURN VALUES
Upon successful completion, the value 0 is returned; otherwise the
value -1 is returned and the global variable errno is set to indicate the
error.
(unveil(2) has similar wording.)
unveil(NULL, NULL) on the other hard is just redundant when you're not
pledging "unveil". Not wrong; just redundant.
Thanks,
Omar Polo
