Stephen Smalley wrote: >Might be interesting to see the results of that change, but just to > note, from the man page for vfork in Linux: > > BUGS > It is rather unfortunate that Linux revived this specter from > the past. The BSD man page states: "This system call will > be eliminated when proper system sharing mechanisms are > implemented. Users should not depend on the memory > sharing semantics of vfork() as it will, in that case, be made > synonymous to fork(2)." > > Details of the signal handling are obscure and differ between > systems. The BSD man page states: "To avoid a possible > deadlock situation, pro- cesses that are children in the > middle of a vfork() are never sent SIGTTOU or SIGTTIN > signals; rather, output or ioctls are allowed and input > attempts result in an end-of-file indication." Be that as it may, vfork() is now part of POSIX so I don't think it is going anywhere. On modern systems it is really just an asyncronous fork(), though we are not even relying on that here. That info from the BSD manual page dates from back when BSD had a less advanced VM system. - todd -- This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list. If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.
