Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 15:46:11 +0900 From: "D. Jeff Dionne" <jeff@...inux.org> To: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> Cc: "D. Jeff Dionne" <jeff@...inux.org>, Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>, "musl@...ts.openwall.com" <musl@...ts.openwall.com>, "shumpei.kawasaki@...wc.com" <shumpei.kawasaki@...wc.com> Subject: Re: Moving forward with sh2/nommu > On Jun 12, 2015, at 3:37 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote: >> >> This is not a nommu uClinux thing, it is a restriction we inherited >> from BSD vfork(). It makes things much simpler (read: tractable at >> all), actually. > > I'm not talking about returning from the function that called vfork. > This is about returning from vfork itself, to the caller of vfork. >>> The first return >>> (in the child) would properly restore these registers, but subsequent >>> execution in the child (in the function that called vfork, e.g. when >>> it sets up the stack for a call to execl) could clobber the locations >>> where they were saved on the stack, and when the parent resumed >>> execution, it vfork would restore the wrong values, and very bad >>> things could happen in the caller Oh, I see what you were saying, sorry about that. You are correct, there can be no C stack frame for vfork(), I agree. Cheers, J.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.