> I disagree with you. > > What about this scenario: > * Parent call vfork, saves rp in -20(%sp) (parents frame) > * Parent suspends upon entry to vfork syscall > * Child returns from vfork syscall > * Child restores rp from -20(%sp) (parents frame) > * Child calls close which saves rp in -20(%sp) (parents frame) > * Child calls execve > * Parent resumes, restores rp from -20(%sp) and incorrectly returns to > just after the call to close. > > At this point if the parent restores rp from the parents frame it will > get the rp the child's call to close saved. You are right. > > The only way to get around this is to *ensure* the kernel > saves/restores r2 across the syscall. > > I see no other way around it. It looks as if r2 is saved for both parent and child. Dave -- J. David Anglin dave.anglin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx National Research Council of Canada (613) 990-0752 (FAX: 952-6602) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-parisc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
