Joshua Hudson wrote:
So this would tend to confirm the rule of thumb: use of "volatile" in
a userspace progam tends to indicate a bug.
- Ted
No. vfork(), setjmp(), signal().
Yes, I use vfork. So far, the only way I have found for the parent to
know whether or not the child's exec() failed is this way:
volatile int failed;
pid_t pid;
failed = 0;
if (0 == (pid = vfork())) {
execve(argv[0], argv, envp);
failed = errno;
_exit(0);
}
if (pid < 0) {
/* can't fork */
}
if (failed) {
/* wait for pid (clean up zombie) */
errno = failed;
/* can't exec: update state */
}
May not be portable because you're apparently not supposed to assume
anything about the memory sharing semantics (eg. it may share memory
or it may not -- AFAIK if your code doesn't work correctly after
replacing vfork with fork, then it is buggy).
What's wrong with _exit(exec() == -1 ? 0 : errno);
and picking up the status with wait(2) ?
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
