Hi, On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Jeremy Huddleston <jerem...@apple.com> wrote: > IMO, there is a point to closing stdin aside from the setsid(2). My point is, it only solves the problem part way.
As an example, say a program wants to ask the user for a password. The program supports asking the user at the console if run from a tty, and supports asking the user from an X dialog otherwise. The way that program would ask the user for a password at the console is by opening /dev/tty (since password programs don't read input from stdin). That program could first try to open /dev/tty, and if it fails assume an X fall back. If you haven't insulated the client from the tty startx was run on, then this program may end up trying to ask for a password on some switched away VT! and would probably get suspended instantly with SIGTTIN. You could argue the client should try X first and fall back to console. Or you could argue the client should do isatty() on stdin before trying to open /dev/tty. But both are debatable and this is just one example, anyway. The example serves to show that redirecting STDIN to /dev/null partially solves the same problem setsid partially solves.That problem is "detaching X clients from the tty startx was run on". Or is there another problem being solved, that you have in mind? --Ray _______________________________________________ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
