Re: posix_spawn[p] less secure on Hurd than on Linux

Hello, Bruno Haible, le jeu. 24 déc. 2020 02:54:28 +0100, a ecrit: > this misfeature was withdrawn from glibc in > > and > . > > But the test p

Re: posix_spawn[p] less secure on Hurd than on Linux

Thanks for reporting Bruno! Pointing out issues with GNU/Hurd's glibc is super helpful! -- Joshua Branson Sent from Emacs and Gnus https://gnucode.me https://video.hardlimit.com/accounts/joshua_branson/video-channels https://propernaming.org "You can have whatever you want, as long as

Re: posix_spawn in gcc

On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 05:59:14PM -0700, James Morrison wrote: >I recently went though some discussions about gcc using posix_spawn instead > of fork/exec. I think linux should be the special case instead of GNU being > the special case. so the ifdef would be > # if !defined(HAVE_POSIX_SP

Re: posix_spawn in gcc

I think there was also some sentiment that people would not object to using posix_spawnp on Linux if the generic glibc implementation were made more efficient. The only efficiency that can really be gotten in a generic POSIX.1 implementation over what glibc has now is to avoid using malloc when t

Re: posix_spawn

Roland McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > A really useful test would be someone were to port a useful program like > make to use posix_spawn in place of fork + exec and do some real-world > tests (compiles and such) using that. The three programs that I would most strongly suggest for this tr

Re: posix_spawn

> Roland, it is a pleasure debugging your code: I always learn so much. :-) I'll read that as other than learning what not to do, and take it as a compliment. > o We need for the declaration of spin_lock_locked. I don't buy this. My compile works fine, and picks up that header through its i

Re: posix_spawn

> Now that people are able to build libc, I'd like somebody to try out > my posix_spawn implementation. Plop this into sysdeps/mach/hurd/spawni.c, > rebuild libc, and then try the `tst-spawn' test in posix. Then you get to > debug it for me. As described in the comments, I will probably rewrite

Re: posix_spawn

> Just out of curiosity, is posix_spawn a standard interface? And > is it reasonable for programs to expect to have it available > on a system that say, doesn't use glibc? It's specified by some newfangled draft standard, as a new POSIX option. It is not a GNU invention. I don't know of any othe

Re: posix_spawn

On Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 05:53:52AM -0400, Roland McGrath wrote: > It has been noted that the slowness of fork on the Hurd may be a > substantial factor in uses like large builds. One way to avoid this > problem is to avoid fork. In glibc we have providing posix_spawn > and related functions; mo