Concurrency semantics of fork
Michael Kerrisk
mtk.manpages@gmail.com
Tue Dec 22 14:20:00 GMT 2015
On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 5:25 AM, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 11/13/2015 06:05 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Ian Pilcher:
>>
>>> On 11/09/2015 06:41 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>>> Assume a lockless malloc implementation and then fork. What guarantees does
>>>> the child have with regards to the state of the structures in such a malloc
>>>> implementation?
>>>
>>> POSIX explicitly says that you can't make any assumptions about the
>>> state of a multi-threaded application after calling fork. Thus you're
>>> only allowed to call async-safe functions between fork and one of the
>>> exec functions.
>>
>> glibc supports malloc after fork in multi-threaded programs as an
>> extension, I assume. There is quite a bit of code to support this
>> functionality. I don't think we can remove it. We have to fix it
>> instead.
>
> Correct. POSIX is the minimum we offer in many places and we should srive
> to solve real user problems and usage patterns. Particularly when we have
> already an implicit or explicit agreement to do so.
So, would it be acceptable to document in a man page that glibc
supports malloc() and friends in the child of a fokr() in a
multithreaded program?
Cheers,
Michael
More information about the Libc-help
mailing list