Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 8 Jan 1999 13:31:19 -0800 (PST) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: 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.
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/
| |