blob: 12511e707c5e4143b5d94f541c74eb4b2bb18ebf (
plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
|
From 40fea4552377504ce69935149e64e39a595f4600 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Ond=C5=99ej=20Lyson=C4=9Bk?= <olysonek@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2019 17:50:14 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Move closing standard FDs after listen()
The vsf_sysutil_close() calls need to be moved a bit further so that
die() works properly in case listen() fails.
I see no reason the calls should be placed before listen()
specifically, as they are now. My guess is that the author who added
the calls thought that listen() is a blocking call, which is not the
case. The only thing we need to satisfy is that close() is called
before accept, because that is a blocking call. That's all that is
needed to fix the bug that was fixed by adding the close() calls.
Resolves: rhbz#1666380
---
standalone.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/standalone.c b/standalone.c
index 3f35e9e..b358ca1 100644
--- a/standalone.c
+++ b/standalone.c
@@ -152,15 +152,15 @@ vsf_standalone_main(void)
vsf_sysutil_kill(vsf_sysutil_getppid(), kVSFSysUtilSigUSR1);
}
}
- vsf_sysutil_close(0);
- vsf_sysutil_close(1);
- vsf_sysutil_close(2);
retval = vsf_sysutil_listen(listen_sock, VSFTP_LISTEN_BACKLOG);
if (vsf_sysutil_retval_is_error(retval))
{
die("could not listen");
}
vsf_sysutil_sockaddr_alloc(&p_accept_addr);
+ vsf_sysutil_close(0);
+ vsf_sysutil_close(1);
+ vsf_sysutil_close(2);
while (1)
{
struct vsf_client_launch child_info;
--
2.20.1
|
