On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 2:49 PM Alejandro Colomar <alx@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Elliott, > > On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 02:12:12PM -0800, enh wrote: > > (apologies for the post without a patch but...) > > No worries. :) > > > fyi, i noticed that there's no reference to _Fork() anywhere. i'd send > > a patch, but given that vfork() has a page to itself, i'm assuming > > just adding a paragraph to fork(2) isn't the plan? > > Hmmm, I didn't know about the existence of _Fork(). It looks like > _Exit(3) and exit(3), right? Maybe we could write a page based on > _Exit(3). What do you think? in the "don't do that other stuff" sense, yes --- here's what i wrote for the doc comment in Android's <unistd.h>: /** * _Fork() creates a new process. _Fork() differs from fork() in that it does * not run any handlers set by pthread_atfork(). * * Returns 0 in the child, the pid of the child in the parent, * and returns -1 and sets `errno` on failure. * * Available since API level 35. */ pid_t _Fork(void) __INTRODUCED_IN(35); looks like glibc has a bit more: https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Creating-a-Process.html The _Fork function is similar to fork, but it does not invoke any callbacks registered with pthread_atfork, nor does it reset any internal state or locks (such as the malloc locks). In the new subprocess, only async-signal-safe functions may be called, such as dup2 or execve. The _Fork function is an async-signal-safe replacement of fork. It is a GNU extension. whereas i assumed that everyone knows that bionic's internal state resetting is done via pthread_atfork() which, in retrospect, is probably an unreasonable assumption /facepalm annoyingly, while this is slated for POSIX issue 8 (https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=62) it's not there yet, so there's nothing public to point to there. > Have a lovely night! > Alex > > -- > <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/> > Looking for a remote C programming job at the moment.
