Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 22:33:58 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Sujal Patel <smpatel@umiacs.umd.edu> Cc: Michael Hancock <michaelh@cet.co.jp>, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: vfork cow? Message-ID: <2141.835076038@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 17 Jun 1996 20:33:15 PDT." <Pine.NEB.3.92.960617202626.179L-100000@xi.dorm.umd.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 1- Many old programs use vfork()'s "feature" of allowing the child access > to the parent's address space. While it's plain wrong for a > program to exploit this side-effect of vfork(), it's already done > (and hard to undo). I don't think we support this anymore though. If you look at our implementation, both fork() and vfork() call fork1() (in /sys/kern/kern_fork.c) and the only difference in vfork's case is that the RFPPWAIT flag is passed, as Sean mentioned earlier. I don't believe they behave any differently otherwise. Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2141.835076038>