Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 20 October 2008, Chris Gray wrote:
> > On Monday 20 October 2008 19:23, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> > > Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > > @@ -237,9 +237,9 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
> > > > > send_output("----------------\n", 0, send_flag);
> > > > >
> > > > > if (outbuf) {
> > > > > - pid = fork();
> > > > > + pid = vfork();
> > > > > if (pid < 0) {
> > > > > - perror("fork");
> > > > > + perror("vfork");
> > > > > exit(1);
> > > > > }
> > > > > if (pid) {
> > > >
> > > > but this one is wrong because the child will call exit() after
> > > > writing its log
> > >
> > > It's ok to call _exit() in a vfork-child, but not exit().
> > > So that should be changed.
> > >
> > > Writing the log in a vfork-child is dodgy, depending on how it's done.
> >
> > If vfork returns < 0 then the fork failed and no child process was created,
> > n'est-ce pas? So we are executing in the parent.
>
> read the whole code. there's an exit() in the non-error case. i wasnt
> referring to the exit() that happened to be in the patch shown.
Btw, in most cases exit() should not be called in a *fork* child
either, let alone *vfork*. It will flush stdio buffers - and they may
get flushed by the parent when it exits too. Same for atexit()
handlers.
Often if there's an exit() in a fork child and the parent too, one of
them should be _exit(), and it's usually the child.
-- Jamie
_______________________________________________
uClinux-dev mailing list
uClinux-dev@uclinux.org
http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev
This message was resent by uclinux-dev@uclinux.org
To unsubscribe see:
http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
