Re: rfork(2) considered harmful? [Re: CVS: cvs.openbsd.org: src]

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 6:26 AM, Mo Libden wrote: > Wow. If memory serves, rfork() availability was a feature. > Now it is gone... Any reasons to share please? > > It allowed creation of interesting types of processes, > awesome flexibility regarding share of memory space > and/or file handle tabl

Re: rfork(2) considered harmful? [Re: CVS: cvs.openbsd.org: src]

Thu, 12 Apr 2012 11:32:54 -0400 P>Q Ted Unangst : > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012, Mo Libden wrote: > > > Wow. If memory serves, rfork() availability was a feature. > > Now it is gone... Any reasons to share please? > > > > It allowed creation of interesting types of processes, > > awesome flexibility re

Re: rfork(2) considered harmful? [Re: CVS: cvs.openbsd.org: src]

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012, Mo Libden wrote: > Wow. If memory serves, rfork() availability was a feature. > Now it is gone... Any reasons to share please? > > It allowed creation of interesting types of processes, > awesome flexibility regarding share of memory space > and/or file handle tables. rthre

rfork(2) considered harmful? [Re: CVS: cvs.openbsd.org: src]

Thu, 12 Apr 2012 06:33:04 -0600 (MDT) P>Q Theo de Raadt : > CVSROOT: /cvs > Module name: src > Changes by: dera...@cvs.openbsd.org 2012/04/12 06:33:04 > > Modified files: > sys/kern : kern_fork.c syscalls.master > sys/sys: param.h proc.h vmmeter.h > incl