<html>
<head>
<base href="https://bugzilla.gnome.org/" />
</head>
<body>
<p>
<div>
<b><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - Do not rely on memfd as it requires a fairly recent kernel"
href="https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=766341#c12">Comment # 12</a>
on <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - Do not rely on memfd as it requires a fairly recent kernel"
href="https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=766341">bug 766341</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a href="page.cgi?id=describeuser.html&login=simon.mcvittie%40collabora.co.uk" title="Simon McVittie <simon.mcvittie@collabora.co.uk>"> <span class="fn">Simon McVittie</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre>(In reply to Ray Strode [halfline] from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=766341#c11">comment #11</a>)
<span class="quote">> we may have to check for EPERM in addition to ENOSYS. see this, oddly
> coincidental, irc log from this morning</span >
I'd be tempted to ignore errno and just assume that any memfd_create() failure
should result in fallback... is there any reason memfd_create() could fail
where trying shm_open() wouldn't be a valid fallback?
Looking at the memfd_create man page, EMFILE/ENFILE would fail in the same way
for shm_open(), ENOMEM would probably have the same result for shm_open() too,
and EINVAL can only happen if it's used wrong.</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are on the CC list for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>