On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Gleb Natapov wrote: > On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 02:22:40PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > > Your stack example is a good one: if we end up setting VM_DONTCOPY on > > the user stack, then I don't think fork's child will get very far without > > hitting a SIGSEGV. > > I know, but I prefer child SIGSEGV than silent data corruption.
Most people will share your preference, but neither is satisfactory. > In most cases child will exec immediately after fork so no problem > in this case. In most(?) cases it won't even be able to exec before the SIGSEGV. Hugh _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
