Re: Is -fsanitize=address working?

On Thu, 2 Oct 2025, Robert Elz wrote:

> And lastly, name games, like:
>
>  | And, it's O_CLOFORK, not O_CLOCLONE.
>
> don't really work.   It isn't O_CLOSPAWN either, yet definitely
> applies to posix_spawn().
>

Well, posix_spawn() is fork() + exec(), so applying O_CLOFORK makes sense there;
whereas clone()--with those flags--is how you create threads on Linux. Ie.
the opposite, if you will, of a fork(). I don't see why O_CLOFORK should even
be considered inside clone().

>  It also (at least currently) applies to clone() as well, it just doesn't
> work if that is used with the CLONE_FILES flag. Absent that flag, clone()
> closes O_CLOFORK fds. (Which, I admit is also guessing at what linux will
> do in the future.)
>

Yah, we have a couple of workarounds for Thomas to try out, so we can wait
to see what the Linux folks do for O_CLOFORK in clone().

-RVP