On Sun, 21 Mar 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> :Hence the NEW flag RFSTACK. Why would this be a bad thing? This would keep
> :the old behavior and allow much nicer new behavior. I didn't suggest
> :changing the old behavior. This would just greatly simplify things so all of
>
> I think Richard Seaman has it right: the stack needs to be passed.
>
> Why don't we simply implement the linux clone()? It sounds to me that
> it would be trivial.
Let's add another parameter to fork1/rfork():
pid_t rfork __P((int, ...)); for userland
struct rfork_args { int flags; caddr_t extra; };
and in the kernel would be:
fork1(p1, flags)
register struct proc *p1;
int flags;
caddr_t extra;
{ foo
}
We, of course, have backward binary and code compatibility outside of the
kernel with the ellipses, and inside the kernel we control it anyway so we
can modify whatever needs to be changed.
>
> :the assembly wouldn't be needed. Hmm... actually... if one were to mmap() a
> :stack and as soon as the rfork() returned movl newstack,%esp and whatnot,
> :wouldn't this be a pretty simple solution?
>
> No, because one of the processes may overrun the stack before the other
> one managed to return from rfork(). The child process cannot use the
> old stack at all.
Why would a simple movl be using the stack?
>
> Matthew Dillon
> <dil...@backplane.com>
>
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
>
Brian Feldman _ __ ___ ___ ___
gr...@unixhelp.org _ __ ___ | _ ) __| \
http://www.freebsd.org/ _ __ ___ ____ | _ \__ \ |) |
FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! _ __ ___ ____ _____ |___/___/___/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
