Re: [Libguestfs] [libnbd PATCH 3/6] macOS: Simple cloexec/nonblock fix

> Is the fuzzer multithreaded? Or can we just blindly do the workaround > ourselves and not worry about trying to use SOCK_CLOEXEC here? Also, it feels like some duplication; can we not reuse nbd_internal_socketpair from the fuzzer? AFL-type fuzzers which all use libnbd-fuzz-wrapper.c are not multithreaded. They will launch a new process for each test case. I don't think they could easily be multithreaded: part of the goal is to try to make the test program crash, and they also require instrumenting the test binary. As an aside our test case / wrapper also creates a subprocess since it creates a phony NBD server (the child), connects the two processes by a socketpair, and runs libnbd in the parent. (Now that I look again at the code this might be changed to use two threads instead of processes, not that it would make much difference on Linux.) Since the test case never calls exec it doesn't seem to me that we need to set SOCK_CLOEXEC at all, it's just a code cleanliness thing.