Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 09:21:55 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: Brian Feldman <green@unixhelp.org> Cc: Alfred Perlstein <bright@rush.net>, "John S. Dyson" <dyson@iquest.net>, samit@usa.ltindia.com, commiters@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: rfork() Message-ID: <199903211721.JAA13495@apollo.backplane.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9903211357250.1144-100000@zone.syracuse.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:Hence the NEW flag RFSTACK. Why would this be a bad thing? This would keep
:the old behavior and allow much nicer new behavior. I didn't suggest
:changing the old behavior. This would just greatly simplify things so all of
I think Richard Seaman has it right: the stack needs to be passed.
Why don't we simply implement the linux clone()? It sounds to me that
it would be trivial.
:the assembly wouldn't be needed. Hmm... actually... if one were to mmap() a
:stack and as soon as the rfork() returned movl newstack,%esp and whatnot,
:wouldn't this be a pretty simple solution?
No, because one of the processes may overrun the stack before the other
one managed to return from rfork(). The child process cannot use the
old stack at all.
Matthew Dillon
<dillon@backplane.com>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199903211721.JAA13495>