From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jun 22 20:19:11 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 6294416A4CE; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 20:19:11 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id E204F43D49; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 20:19:10 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com)
Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4])
	by mail.pcnet.com (8.12.10/8.12.1) with ESMTP id i5MKIpon018521;
	Tue, 22 Jun 2004 16:18:51 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 16:18:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>
X-Sender: eischen@pcnet5.pcnet.com
To: Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com>
In-Reply-To: <20040622182632.GJ86471@dan.emsphone.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10406221614470.17576-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: hackers@freebsd.org
cc: threads@freebsd.org
cc: Chris Stenton <jacs@gnome.co.uk>
Subject: Re: pthread - fork - execv problem
X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD <freebsd-threads.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-threads>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-threads@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 20:19:11 -0000

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, Dan Nelson wrote:

> In the last episode (Jun 22), Nikos Ntarmos said:
> > On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 09:56:33AM -0500, Dan Nelson wrote:
> > > It may be an application bug.  After a fork both processes are
> > > independant.  The child should not be able to affect the parent
> > > like this, unless the parent does something like holding a mutex
> > > used by all the threads and calling wait().
> > 
> > ... or the child holding a mutex before the fork(2) syscall. FWIW the
> > Linux info for libc and the NetBSD and Solaris man pages mention
> > pthread_atfork(3), used to install handlers to take care of such
> > cases. FreeBSD seems to not know of any such function, so chances are
> > that fork()'ing from inside a posix thread is not supported (?).
> 
> It's definitely a possibility.
> 
> libpthread in -current does support pthread_atfork, and I have a patch
> (below) that adds the same functionality to libc_r and libthr that I
> need to send-pr.  Pointy hat to the original committer for breaking ABI
> compatibility.

Whaa?  Adding a function doesn't break ABI, and I don't want
to maintain 3 thread libraries.

-- 
Dan Eischen