From: cgf AT cygnus DOT com (Christopher G. Faylor)
Subject: Re: Foolproof solution for non-inherit on spawn/exec?
11 Jun 1998 13:59:18 GMT
Message-ID: <6lonrm$jjc$1@cronkite.cygnus.com>
References: <01BD9520 DOT 2EFBD4F0 DOT cygnus DOT cygwin32 DOT developers AT drs>
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test63 (15 March 1998)

In article <01BD9520 DOT 2EFBD4F0 DOT cygnus DOT cygwin32 DOT developers AT drs>,
Sergey Okhapkin <sos AT prospect DOT com DOT ru> wrote:
>Geoffrey Noer wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 08, 1998 at 09:56:20AM +0400, Sergey Okhapkin wrote:
>> >
>> > I don't like this idea...
>>
>> Could you give more details as to why?  Thanks!
>>
>
>I don't like a duplication of handles in a child's code. This case the 
>child have to OpenProcess(parent). This open may fail due to security 
>reasons after sexec() calls. The second, duplicated sockets fails to 
>connect thru MS winsock proxy server on Windows NT (didn't try on W95).

I don't like these objections.
-- 
cgf AT cygnus DOT com             "Everything has a boolean value, if you stand
http://www.cygnus.com/      far enough away from it."  -- Galena Alyson Canada