Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 16:19:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org, freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: threads/101323: fork(2) in threaded programs broken. Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0608031614450.13543@sea.ntplx.net> In-Reply-To: <50596.1154635700@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <50596.1154635700@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 3 Aug 2006, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > 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. Actually, I would prefer to emit an error message of the form: "fork() from a threaded process is not defined by POSIX" and purposefully segfault ;-) > 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 ? For that one specific change, no objection. I have an objection to enabling the NOTYET in thr_kern.c without having an overall solution for libc as well. -- DE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.64.0608031614450.13543>