Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: parent process behaviour to signal after vfork() | From | Valdis.Kletnieks@vt ... | Date | Thu, 30 Oct 2008 01:38:30 -0400 |
| |
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 08:17:36 CDT, Michael Kerrisk said:
> diff --git a/man2/vfork.2 b/man2/vfork.2 > index 55044ad..8a7ed50 100644 > --- a/man2/vfork.2 > +++ b/man2/vfork.2 > @@ -94,7 +94,10 @@ but may call > .PP > Signal handlers are inherited, but not shared. > Signals to the parent > -arrive after the child releases the parent's memory. > +arrive after the child releases the parent's memory (i.e., after the child calls > +.BR _exit (2) > +or > +.BR execve (2)).
OK, I'll bite - when is the parent's memory released if the child doesn't depart by calling _exit() or execve(), but manages to get killed by an unhandled signal or the OOM killer or similar?
(That's the generic problem with adding itemized lists to an explanation - it's rarely clear if the list is an exhaustive list, or a non-complete list of examples. Note how often we have flame wars regarding which EQUUX should be returned in a corner case that hinge on whether Posix says "Only FOO, BAR, and BAZ can be returned" or "FOO, BAR, BAZ are among the errors that can be returned")
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |