[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Leak in BASH "named" file descriptors?
From: |
Greg Wooledge |
Subject: |
Re: Leak in BASH "named" file descriptors? |
Date: |
Thu, 28 Jan 2016 08:09:41 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4.2.3i |
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 01:18:11PM -0500, Mathieu Patenaude wrote:
> When using "named" file descriptors inside a function, the file descriptors
> are not automatically un-linked when the function returns, but when using
> regular "numbered" file descriptors they are automatically "destroyed".
Could not reproduce in an interactive shell, on bash 4.3.30 (Debian).
$ f() { local fd; exec {fd}</dev/null; }
$ f
$ g() { exec 9</dev/null; }
$ g
$ lsof -p $$
...
bash 931 wooledg 0u CHR 136,0 0t0 3 /dev/pts/0
bash 931 wooledg 1u CHR 136,0 0t0 3 /dev/pts/0
bash 931 wooledg 2u CHR 136,0 0t0 3 /dev/pts/0
bash 931 wooledg 9r CHR 1,3 0t0 1028 /dev/null
bash 931 wooledg 10r CHR 1,3 0t0 1028 /dev/null
bash 931 wooledg 255u CHR 136,0 0t0 3 /dev/pts/0
I actually ran the lsof multiple times, in between the calls to f and g.
FD 10 was opened by f (and kept open), and FD 9 was of course opened by g
(and kept open).
- Leak in BASH "named" file descriptors?, Mathieu Patenaude, 2016/01/27
- Re: Leak in BASH "named" file descriptors?,
Greg Wooledge <=
- Re: Leak in BASH "named" file descriptors?, Andreas Schwab, 2016/01/28
- Re: Leak in BASH "named" file descriptors?, Mathieu Patenaude, 2016/01/28
- Re: Leak in BASH "named" file descriptors?, Greg Wooledge, 2016/01/28
- Re: Leak in BASH "named" file descriptors?, Mathieu Patenaude, 2016/01/28
- Re: Leak in BASH "named" file descriptors?, Andreas Schwab, 2016/01/28
- Re: Leak in BASH "named" file descriptors?, Reuti, 2016/01/28
- Re: Leak in BASH "named" file descriptors?, Chet Ramey, 2016/01/28
- Re: Leak in BASH "named" file descriptors?, Mathieu Patenaude, 2016/01/28
Re: Leak in BASH "named" file descriptors?, Chet Ramey, 2016/01/28