[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:0.077 / U:0.664 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site