Re: [HACKERS] Should libpq set close-on-exec flag on its socket?

2004-10-22 Thread Dominic Mitchell
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 02:10:48PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: It was suggested to me off-list that libpq should do fcntl(fd, F_SETFD, FD_CLOEXEC) on the socket connecting to the server. This would prevent any child program from accidentally or maliciously interfering with the connection. It would

[HACKERS] Should libpq set close-on-exec flag on its socket?

2004-10-21 Thread Tom Lane
It was suggested to me off-list that libpq should do fcntl(fd, F_SETFD, FD_CLOEXEC) on the socket connecting to the server. This would prevent any child program from accidentally or maliciously interfering with the connection. It would also prevent people from deliberately turning over a

Re: [HACKERS] Should libpq set close-on-exec flag on its socket?

2004-10-21 Thread Dennis Bjorklund
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Tom Lane wrote: It was suggested to me off-list that libpq should do fcntl(fd, F_SETFD, FD_CLOEXEC) on the socket connecting to the server. This would prevent any child program from accidentally or maliciously interfering with the connection. Either way that the lib sets

Re: [HACKERS] Should libpq set close-on-exec flag on its socket?

2004-10-21 Thread Tom Lane
Dennis Bjorklund [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Tom Lane wrote: It was suggested to me off-list that libpq should do fcntl(fd, F_SETFD, FD_CLOEXEC) on the socket connecting to the server. This would prevent any child program from accidentally or maliciously interfering with

Re: [HACKERS] Should libpq set close-on-exec flag on its socket?

2004-10-21 Thread Kevin Brown
Tom Lane wrote: Dennis Bjorklund [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Tom Lane wrote: It was suggested to me off-list that libpq should do fcntl(fd, F_SETFD, FD_CLOEXEC) on the socket connecting to the server. This would prevent any child program from accidentally or maliciously