:> :the assembly wouldn't be needed. Hmm... actually... if one were to mmap() a
:> :stack and as soon as the rfork() returned movl newstack,%esp and whatnot,
:> :wouldn't this be a pretty simple solution?
:>
:> No, because one of the processes may overrun the stack before the other
:> one managed to return from rfork(). The child process cannot use the
:> old stack at all.
:
:Why would a simple movl be using the stack?
If you are making a subroutine *call* to the rfork() routine, where
do you think the return PC address is stored? On the stack. The
rfork() routine is going to 'ret' *after* doing the rfork syscall.
'ret' pops the stack. While this in itself is not modifying the stack,
you can still wind up with the situation where process A returns from
the rfork and then does something else which overwrites the stack before
process B has a chance to return from the rfork().
This is why, in my assembly example, I was forced to make the syscall
manually rather then call the rfork() library function.
:>
: Brian Feldman _ __ ___ ___ ___
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
<[email protected]>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [email protected]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
