--- Denis Vlasenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > The child merely execv()s.
> > >
> > > So on NOMMU execv() basically creates another process in another
> > > memory region, and
> > > terminates current one, unless there is a parent sitting in vfork and
> > > waiting
> > > (in which case parent is woken up instead of exit)?
> >
> > No, execve works exactly it does on an MMU system. It loads a new
> > executable into the
> > current process.
>
> ...trashing all memory area occupied by the process? how parent is
> able to run then?
And what about the normal fork and execve? With fork, the text vmas are shared
too, and,
I guess, on execve they are unshared. Not sure, but I guess the same happens
here. Well,
not the same, since there is a difference between a shared vma and a shared
address_space, but it's the same idea.
Anyway, that's my understanding.
Alx
>
> > The difference is with vfork: on vfork, the parent is suspended, and the
> > child shares it's whole address space with the parent (the stack is shared
> > too -
> that's
> > why this is so tricky!). The parent is resumed when the child either
> > execve()s or
> > _exit()s.
>
> I don't understand how parent is able to run if execve just nuked
> parent's text segment
> with unrelated code of execed program.
> --
> vda
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play
Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
http://sims.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
[email protected]
http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
