Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 910897
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 15, 20262026-05-15T17:06:52+00:00 2026-05-15T17:06:52+00:00

I have the following situation (pseudocode): function f: pid = fork() if pid ==

  • 0

I have the following situation (pseudocode):

function f:
    pid = fork()
    if pid == 0:
        exec to another long-running executable (no communication needed to that process)
    else:
        return "something"

f is exposed over a XmlRpc++ server. When the function is called over XML-RPC, the parent process prints “done closing socket” after the function returned “something”. But the XML-RPC client hangs as long as the child process is still running. When I kill the child process, the XML-RPC client correctly finishes the RPC call.

It seems to me that I’m having a problem with fork() copying socket descriptors to the child process (parent called closesocket but child still owns a reference -> connection still established). How can I circumvent this?

EDIT: I read about FD_CLOEXEC already, but can’t I force all descriptors to be closed on exec?

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-15T17:06:53+00:00Added an answer on May 15, 2026 at 5:06 pm

    No, you can’t force all file descriptors to be closed on exec. You will need to loop over all unwanted file descriptors in the child after the fork() and close them. Unfortunately, there isn’t an easy, portable, way to do that – the usual approach is to use getrlimit() to get the current value of RLIMIT_NOFILE and loop from 3 to that number, trying close() on each candidate.

    If you are happy to be Linux-only, you can read the /proc/self/fd/ directory to determine the open file descriptors and close them (except 0, 1 and 2 – which should either be left alone or reopened to /dev/null).

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Ask A Question

Stats

  • Questions 445k
  • Answers 445k
  • Best Answers 0
  • User 1
  • Popular
  • Answers
  • Editorial Team

    How to approach applying for a job at a company ...

    • 7 Answers
  • Editorial Team

    What is a programmer’s life like?

    • 5 Answers
  • Editorial Team

    How to handle personal stress caused by utterly incompetent and ...

    • 5 Answers
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer Yes, it makes no difference in this case. In some… May 15, 2026 at 7:03 pm
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer jQuery('#btnEdit').css('visibility', 'visible'); It is very near the top of the… May 15, 2026 at 7:03 pm
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer I wasn't aware this was possible but, according to the… May 15, 2026 at 7:03 pm

Trending Tags

analytics british company computer developers django employee employer english facebook french google interview javascript language life php programmer programs salary

Top Members

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.