Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 20:08:20 +0000 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org, freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: threads/101323: fork(2) in threaded programs broken. Message-ID: <50596.1154635700@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 03 Aug 2006 16:04:49 -0400." <Pine.GSO.4.64.0608031558540.13543@sea.ntplx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <Pine.GSO.4.64.0608031558540.13543@sea.ntplx.net>, Daniel Eischen wr ites: >There's no easy way to hold all library locks. They are >littered in libc and libpthread and the application doesn't >have access to them. You would have to teach libc to >record these locks and export a function to lib<thread> >to lock and unlock these them. I would be perfectly happy if libpthread would just at the very least release the locks it specifically grabs for the fork. There's a big difference between giving it a sensible shot and downright sabotaging it the way we do currently. Anyway, apart from the view from the theoretical high ground and the fact that POSIX doesn't actually say anything helpful here, are there any objections to the fix I proposed ? -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50596.1154635700>