Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 20:20:19 GMT From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: threads/101323: fork(2) in threaded programs broken. Message-ID: <200608032020.k73KKJiq021813@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: 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.
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 16:19:29 -0400 (EDT)
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?200608032020.k73KKJiq021813>