httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: Showstopper? Inheritence, CGI Exec() changes bad for cgid
Date Sun, 30 Mar 2003 07:03:31 GMT
At 08:07 PM 3/29/2003, Jeff Trawick wrote:

>Maybe there is a Solaris patch for this :)  It seems really sucky for exec to have a failure
point after close-for-exec files are closed and after signal handling is reset.

No... look at what we do in apr_proc_child_create ... we are the ones closing
all of the handles that we need in invoking ap_log_error()!  Can't blame the OS
for this one :-)

>If we really want that log file descriptor closed when the CGI script runs, then the child
errfn can't use it and must write to stderr, since I believe that that is the only reporting
mechanism guaranteed to be available regardless of where the failure to fork+tweak+exec occurred.

We really do want all the 'extra' handles closed.  The 'one' error logging handle
might or might not be closed based on our choice, but we certainly don't need
a whole horde of handles lying around :-)  I agree that the stderr logging, to get
2.0.45 out the door, is the way to go while we reconsider all these implications.

Bill 


Mime
View raw message