Review request for 5049299 (original) (raw)

Martin Buchholz martinrb at google.com
Mon Jun 8 20:52:47 UTC 2009

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 07:08, Michael McMahon <Michael.McMahon at sun.com>wrote:

That's fine Martin. We can do it that way.

Do you really need to #include <sys/syscall.h>? As far as I can see clone() only requires <sched.h>

You're right. I removed #include of syscall.h. I think I picked it up from some man page somewhere.

When you allocate the clone stack for the child the memory is byte aligned. Is this ok for Linux or should stacks be aligned on larger boundaries?

Good question. The man page is silent on the matter.

I ensure that the stack pointer is as aligned as the return from malloc(), which is supposed to be suitable for any C object. I suspect that if there are more stringent requirements, then the kernel itself will adjust the alignment. Let's keep the current code unless we know of a reason not to.

Also, I don't follow why we need the execveastraditionalshellscript() function. Can you explain the reason for that?

I think my comment for that function explains it fairly well.

/**

The tests I added also pass on the older implementation, so execve_as_traditional_shell_script() prevents a regression. We always supported "traditional shell scripts" - we just didn't know it.

I updated the public version of the patch at: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/clone-exec

Martin

Thanks, Michael. Martin Buchholz wrote:

Michael,

I think the best way to handle the coordination is in two steps. I'd like to get my Linux-clone changes in first (you should review, I will commit) and then we switch hats and I will review your Solaris changes. It seems best to do this in two steps: to better place blame when it breaks (this is very tricky stuff to get right). If you agree, please review my posted changes. Aside: Instead of griping about the missing execvpe, I filed a bug against glibc, and was surprised to find that Ulrich Drepper had implemented it a couple of days later. It will probably be in glibc-2.11. Perhaps in 5 years we can use it ourselves...). Thanks, Uli! Martin On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 07:29, Michael McMahon <Michael.McMahon at sun.com<mailto:_ _Michael.McMahon at sun.com>> wrote: Martin, I had done something similar with clone & exec for Linux, but hadn't got round to testing it. So, it seems reasonable to take yours. Do you want to send me your updated versions of processmd.c and the test? I can take care of the merge with the Solaris code.

-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/attachments/20090608/23357574/attachment.html>

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list