[lkml]   [1999]   [Jan]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Porting vfork()

    On Fri, 8 Jan 1999, Kenneth Albanowski wrote:
    > >
    > > No need to. If you use sleep_on(), the parent won't be getting any signals
    > > anyway (only sleep_on_interruptible() cares about signals).
    > Of course, but is that a good thing? The parent will be unkillable until
    > the child does something.

    Yes. That's basically how vfork() works.

    You could make it a special kind of killable - where you can _only_ kill
    it (ie only fatal signals will be serviced), and that would work. I
    wouldn't do that until people actually start to complain. It's not a
    security issue, as the parent _can_ be killed - you just have to kill the
    child first.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:49    [W:0.039 / U:7.972 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site