From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9767 invoked by alias); 13 Sep 2004 07:57:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact glibc-bugs-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: glibc-bugs-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 9754 invoked by uid 48); 13 Sep 2004 07:57:13 -0000 Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 07:57:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20040913075713.9753.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "dennis at mds dot rmit dot edu dot au" To: glibc-bugs@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: <20040910004801.378.dennis@mds.rmit.edu.au> References: <20040910004801.378.dennis@mds.rmit.edu.au> Reply-To: sourceware-bugzilla@sources.redhat.com Subject: [Bug nptl/378] posix_spawn implementation, use vfork/execve rather than fork/execve for NPTL Linux. X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00076.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From dennis at mds dot rmit dot edu dot au 2004-09-13 07:57 ------- Well spotted. I guess application developers will need to know how each posix_spawn implementation deals with atfork handlers. The Solaris 10 man page indicates clearly what they do. If a change does occur in the NPTL glibc posix_spawn (fingers crossed), again the man will need to state clearly what happens in each situation (fork/exec path and possible vfork/exec path). It does appear that a vfork-path based posix_spawn which does not run atfork handlers will be safe, fast and standards complient. -- http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=378 ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.