On Thu, Jan 22, 2009, David Schultz wrote: > If you can't implement functions that are required to be > async-signal-safe like fork() and exec() without malloc(), then > for now I guess we should go for something along the lines of what > Brian is proposing. If the app programmer has taken special pains > to ensure that all other threads are stopped when a fork happens, > the fork() call shouldn't return in the child with all the malloc > locks bogusly held.
Note that even with Brian's patch, the memory associated with the all the parent's threads' stacks is leaked, and libthr can't be expected to be in a particularly happy state after all of its threads disappear. It just happens to (sort of) work for now. In any case, it's clearly a bug that libthr's fork handler calls _malloc_postfork() in the child even when _malloc_postfork() doesn't work properly in the (now single-threaded) child. Which way to fix it is up to you guys... _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
