On Mon 07-08-17 16:19:18, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 08/07/2017 03:46 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > How do they know that they need to regenerate if they do not get SEGV?
> > Are they going to assume that a read of zeros is a "must init again"? Isn't
> > that too fragile?
> Why would it be fragile? Some level of synchronization is needed to set
> things up, of course, but I think it's possible to write a lock-free
> algorithm to maintain the state even without strong guarantees of memory
> ordering from fork.
Yeah, that is what I meant as fragile... I am not question this is