From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Mon Jan 8 18:42:42 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66FBAE7DC79 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 18:42:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) Received: from kib.kiev.ua (kib.kiev.ua [IPv6:2001:470:d5e7:1::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3D0E6C1F5; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 18:42:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) Received: from tom.home (kib@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kib.kiev.ua (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id w08IgXqF005789 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 8 Jan 2018 20:42:36 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 kib.kiev.ua w08IgXqF005789 Received: (from kostik@localhost) by tom.home (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id w08IgX58005788; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 20:42:33 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) X-Authentication-Warning: tom.home: kostik set sender to kostikbel@gmail.com using -f Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 20:42:33 +0200 From: Konstantin Belousov To: Conrad Meyer Cc: Andrew Duane , Freebsd hackers list Subject: Re: Is it considered to be ok to not check the return code of close(2) in base? Message-ID: <20180108184233.GL1684@kib.kiev.ua> References: <201801081655.w08GtO3D022568@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,FREEMAIL_FROM,NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on tom.home X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2018 18:42:42 -0000 On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 10:13:19AM -0800, Conrad Meyer wrote: > On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 10:05 AM, Andrew Duane wrote: > > Of course, my OCD will kick in and say this would need to be something like: > > > > #ifdef DEBUG_CLOSE > > #define close(f) do {if (close(f) < 0) assert(errno != EBADF); } while (0) > > #endif > > > > Have to watch those macro replacements like "if (need_to_close) close(f);". And the close succeeding :-) > > Of course, this has turned into nerd sniping. But I'll take my turn. > > Better to use the GCC "statement expression" extension so that the > return value of "close()" can still be used by callers naive to the > macro. > > #define close(f) ({ int __ret; __ret = (close)(f); if (__ret < 0) > assert(errno != EBADF); __ret; }) You can create a dso which interposes close(3), calls original close() resolved by dlsym(RTLD_NEXT), and checks for the error, for use with LD_PRELOAD environment variable. No need to vandali^H^H^H^hack on either kernel nor userland code.