Re: [PATCH 3/4] start_command: detect execvp failures early
- From
Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>
- Date
- Jan 14, 2010, 21:53 UTC
- Message-ID
- <201001142253.19595.j6t@kdbg.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <7viqb49xwb.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Donnerstag, 14. Januar 2010, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 10 quoted lines
> Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org> writes: > > Previously, failures during execvp could be detected only by > > finish_command. However, in some situations it is beneficial for the > > parent process to know earlier that the child process will not run. > > > > The idea to use a pipe to signal failures to the parent process and > > the test case were lifted from patches by Ilari Liusvaara. > > I wonder if we can do this without pipe, perhaps using "vfork, exec, then > update a variable"....
Except that some systems implement vfork(2) in terms of fork(2), I heard. Moreover, I think that we do way too many things before the exec; isn't that dangerous?
-- Hannes