From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.ccr.net (ccr@alogconduit1ag.ccr.net [208.130.159.7]) by kvack.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA28401 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 02:20:59 -0500 Subject: Re: vfork & co bugfix References: From: ebiederm+eric@ccr.net (Eric W. Biederman) Date: 11 Jan 1999 00:59:27 -0600 In-Reply-To: Linus Torvalds's message of "Sun, 10 Jan 1999 22:35:44 -0800 (PST)" Message-ID: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: >>>>> "LT" == Linus Torvalds writes: LT> I missed it too, until I started thinking about all the possible LT> combinations. >> Question. Why don't we let CLONE_VFORK be a standard clone flag? LT> Because then we're back to the old problem: before doing a vfork(), LT> somebody could do a "clone(CLONE_VFORK)" (which would _not_ wait on the LT> semaphore like a real vfork() would), and now the wrong child can wake up LT> the parent and mess up the real vfork(). Sorry. I had the implicit assumption that if CLONE_VFORK was a standard clone flag, do_fork would include the five lines of semaphore code. Eric -- This is a majordomo managed list. To unsubscribe, send a message with the body 'unsubscribe linux-mm me@address' to: majordomo@kvack.org