From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Sep 16 23:31:26 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 40AB016A4CE; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:31:26 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mail.ntplx.net (mail.ntplx.net [204.213.176.10])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id D010243D1F; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:31:25 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org)
Received: from sea.ntplx.net (sea.ntplx.net [204.213.176.11])
	i8GNVMML011365;	Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:31:22 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:31:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>
X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net
To: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <414A20F9.5000304@freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0409161929250.26414-100000@sea.ntplx.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.ntplx.net)
cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: SIGILL @ pthread_create() after execv -FIXED-
X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>
List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD <freebsd-threads.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-threads>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-threads@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:31:26 -0000

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004, David Xu wrote:

> Daniel Eischen wrote:
>
> >We do that in fork().  Is execv() not being done after a fork()?
> >
> >
> >
> Joost calls execv() directly in threaded process, he did not go through
> fork() ->execv() path.

Yes, Julian just emailed me similarly.  In that case, I think we need
to wrap execve() and set the kernel signal mask to the threads signal
mask.  We don't need all the single threading stuff that is in our
wrapped fork(); just __sys_sigprocmask() should be sufficient.  Right?

-- 
Dan Eischen