From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753624AbYJ3Fio (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Oct 2008 01:38:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752233AbYJ3Fie (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Oct 2008 01:38:34 -0400 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu ([128.173.14.107]:48298 "EHLO turing-police.cc.vt.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752076AbYJ3Fid (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Oct 2008 01:38:33 -0400 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.2 To: Michael Kerrisk Cc: Halesh S , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: parent process behaviour to signal after vfork() In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 29 Oct 2008 08:17:36 CDT." <517f3f820810290617m49b5deccu5d639cd0d3c94592@mail.gmail.com> From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu References: <517f3f820810290617m49b5deccu5d639cd0d3c94592@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1225345110_4046P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 01:38:30 -0400 Message-ID: <53383.1225345110@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --==_Exmh_1225345110_4046P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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") --==_Exmh_1225345110_4046P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQFJCUhWcC3lWbTT17ARAqtxAJ0WxsrZVlfEMhof44MX6ByLRBJATQCeJoTR L36H9yMajqUjd8HfnPbOEPw= =dGAN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1225345110_4046P--