On 12.05.2020 02:59, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 11:07:02PM +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>> On 19.04.2020 03:06, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
>>> Module Name:        src
>>> Committed By:       joerg
>>> Date:               Sun Apr 19 01:06:16 UTC 2020
>>> Modified Files:
>>>     src/lib/libc/gen: pthread_atfork.c
>>>     src/libexec/ld.elf_so: rtld.c rtld.h symbols.map
>>> Log Message:
>>> Rename __atomic_fork to __locked_fork and give it &errno as argument.
>>> rtld and libc use different storage, so the initial version would
>>> incorrectly report the failure reason for fork().
>>> There is still a small race condition inside ld.elf_so as it doesn't use
>>> thread-safe errno internally, but that's a more contained internal
>>> issue.
>> Should we add the same logic for clone(2)?
> clone only exists for Linux compat. I see no reason to support any fork
> emulation for it.
> Joerg

This Linux compat is on the source code level and inside the kernel
clone() shares the same code with fork().

clone(2) is a regular syscall available in the NetBSD native ABI syscall
layers. There are also users (I have got one).

All problems for fork() can be reproduced for clone(). But if we want to
just mitigate some issues of fork() users and fix/ignore promptly
clone() ones, it is fine.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to