Re: parent process behaviour to signal after vfork()

[Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1061 bytes --]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 08:17:36 CDT, Michael Kerrisk said:

> diff --git a/man2/vfork.2 b/man2/vfork.2
> index 55044ad..8a7ed50 100644
> --- a/man2/vfork.2
> +++ b/man2/vfork.2
> @@ -94,7 +94,10 @@ but may call
>  .PP
>  Signal handlers are inherited, but not shared.
>  Signals to the parent
> -arrive after the child releases the parent's memory.
> +arrive after the child releases the parent's memory (i.e., after the child calls
> +.BR _exit (2)
> +or
> +.BR execve (2)).

OK, I'll bite - when is the parent's memory released if the child doesn't
depart by calling _exit() or execve(), but manages to get killed by an
unhandled signal or the OOM killer or similar?

(That's the generic problem with adding itemized lists to an explanation - it's
rarely clear if the list is an exhaustive list, or a non-complete list of
examples.  Note how often we have flame wars regarding which EQUUX should be
returned in a corner case that hinge on whether Posix says "Only FOO, BAR,
and BAZ can be returned" or "FOO, BAR, BAZ are among the errors that can be
returned")


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 226 bytes --]