Path: csiph.com!xmission!news.snarked.org!news.linkpendium.com!news.linkpendium.com!panix!usenet.stanford.edu!not-for-mail
From: Sam Liddicott <sam@liddicott.com>
Newsgroups: gnu.bash.bug
Subject: Re: leaks fd for internal functions but not external command
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 16:40:03 +0100
Lines: 47
Approved: bug-bash@gnu.org
Message-ID: <mailman.2084.1563896445.2688.bug-bash@gnu.org>
References: <CAOj-5WDk=8kt=J8wO23giFVWRp5=_GbCNB2HQO87Upc4kkTg+g@mail.gmail.com> <5c34ecd5-c8b2-7000-46bc-1bbe3f71f163@case.edu> <CAOj-5WCFbUoU1x2aUvidT1opUbGeG2jFSaM__ch=SUAfzQbQ9w@mail.gmail.com> <78679ee9-fdaf-5180-d32f-81d92b936538@case.edu> <CAOj-5WBei5KMar7c967=jSwZRsW-Rz-0iL20TQMeuQoz61rfkw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj-5WA_URW5b7a2EU+rR=T_wbTDEpOM_PSo9yNyU-Dqj+cWaA@mail.gmail.com> <f6acdcca-4c7c-b05c-004d-9b8ceab1e169@case.edu> <CAOj-5WA0b5Lv9GhXkK6gwoS1uVd2B1a0048tZ6sUNnhVHS+ixg@mail.gmail.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lists.gnu.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Cc: bug-bash@gnu.org, bash@packages.debian.org
To: Chester Ramey <chet.ramey@case.edu>
Envelope-to: bug-bash@gnu.org
In-Reply-To: <f6acdcca-4c7c-b05c-004d-9b8ceab1e169@case.edu>
Precedence: list
Xref: csiph.com gnu.bash.bug:15214

On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 at 16:35, Chet Ramey <chet.ramey@case.edu> wrote:

> On 7/23/19 11:20 AM, Sam Liddicott wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 at 16:15, Sam Liddicott <sam@liddicott.com
> > <mailto:sam@liddicott.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >     On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 at 16:13, Chet Ramey <chet.ramey@case.edu
> >     <mailto:chet.ramey@case.edu>> wrote:
> >
> >         On 7/23/19 11:11 AM, Sam Liddicott wrote:
> >
> >         > The report concerns the different behaviour with internal and
> >         external
> >         > operations.
> >
> >         Right. The close-on-exec is deliberate. That's how it was
> intended.
> >
> >
> >     Doesn't close-on-exec usually takes effect only on the process that
> >     does the exec?
> >     i.e. the fork that does the exec, not the parent process?
> >
> >
> > It got closed in the parent. The lsof is running for the parent, the main
> > process. /bin/echo has quit before the lsof runs.
>
> You mean case 2 in your original post? That's because redirections are
> performed in the child process forked to run /bin/echo, so the fd never
> exists in the parent process. I thought you were talking about case 1,
> with the builtin echo.
>

No doubt, but this report concerns the inconsistency.

Is using {xxx}>... suppose to give me a file handle I can use as I wish (as
you say), or not?

Using explicit descriptors e.g. 10>... behaves consistently whether the the
command is internal or external.

Having bash allocate the descriptor is not consistent.

Sam