Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 10 Jan 1999 23:31:34 -0800 (PST) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: vfork & co bugfix |
| |
On 11 Jan 1999, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > >> Question. Why don't we let CLONE_VFORK be a standard clone flag? > > LT> Because then we're back to the old problem: before doing a vfork(), > LT> somebody could do a "clone(CLONE_VFORK)" (which would _not_ wait on the > LT> semaphore like a real vfork() would), and now the wrong child can wake up > LT> the parent and mess up the real vfork(). > > Sorry. I had the implicit assumption that if CLONE_VFORK was a > standard clone flag, do_fork would include the five lines of semaphore > code.
Oh, ok.
Sure, makes sense, and is probably the right thing to do - that way you can (if you really want to) do some strange half-way vfork(), half-way clone() thing where you share your file descriptors in a vfork().
I don't know how useful it would be, but it would be no uglier than doing it any other way, and I see some advantages (no need for a separate vfork() system call - clone() can do it directly).
I thus remove all my objections,
Linus
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |