Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 20:10:28 GMT From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: threads/101323: fork(2) in threaded programs broken. Message-ID: <200608032010.k73KASoE021230@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR threads/101323; it has been noted by GNATS. 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. Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 20:08:20 +0000 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?200608032010.k73KASoE021230>