On Sun, 27 Dec 2020 18:41:22 +0100, Martijn van Duren wrote:
> Because filters use system(3) after forking we get 2 processes for every
> filter: one for waiting for system(3) to return and one running the actual
> filter.
>
> Since the extra smtpd process does absolutely nothing we can just as ea
On Sun, 2020-12-27 at 11:18 -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> fork_filter_process() does not feel like the right name for
> the function anymore.
>
Why not? Right now we do fork and call system system in the child.
With my diff we move to fork -> exec
The fork part is most definitely still there. Or
fork_filter_process() does not feel like the right name for
the function anymore.
Take note the exit value of the process (as seen by wait elsewhere) will
be subtly differe after this conversion from system() to execve().
Upon failure, rather than being 127, it is now 1.
Martijn van Duren wrote:
Because filters use system(3) after forking we get 2 processes for every
filter: one for waiting for system(3) to return and one running the actual
filter.
Since the extra smtpd process does absolutely nothing we can just as easily
copy over what system(3) does internally for execve and call the s
