Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Alan J. Flavell, post: 4745889"] CGI::Carp is useful stuff, indeed - but in this instance I now realise that there's a missing link - my apologies if I misled you. More on that in a moment. Well, I'm in my sixties, I don't think that's a criterion one way or the other. I say again: protection against *unintended* accidents. If you're already protecting them against that, then well and good. I now realise that of course the exit code from spawning-off the new process isn't the result of the process itself, but only indicates that the spawning-off went OK. Mea culpa. *slap* The whole point of spawning-off a disconnected process without hanging-up the process that started it, means that i/o streams need to be severed, so inevitably it means one needs to look elsewhere for the errors from the spawned-off process. Yup, I think so. Whichever of the various mechanisms are used to do the spawning, this kind of recourse is going to be needed, i guess. Can't think of any. You already found your way to perlsec, evidently. Yup, it was my fault for not realising why that would be... Can you arrange to run this thing as a straightforward CGI script? You seemed to think that it might be getting run via mod_perl (I think it would repay looking into that, despite you implying you didn't want it to be your concern...) Right now I'm looking at [URL]http://www.perldoc.com/perl5.8.0/pod/perlsec.html#Security-Bugs[/URL] and wondering whether your problems may not be fairly adjacent. Mistakes don't have to be hostile. Well, I've said it twice, I won't try again. But I think you'll find a few others around here who would support the general idea of protecting even from unintended accidents. Good luck [/QUOTE]

Verification