> Perhaps I'm missing this, but I read that as the child gets a reference
> to the parent's memory. If the child attempts a write, then new memory
> is allocated, data copied and the write occurs to this new memory. As
> I read this, it's only invoked on a child write.
>
> Would this not leave a hole where the parent could write and, since the
> child shares that memory, the new data would be read by the child? Sort
> of a hidden shm segment? If so, I think we've got problems brewing.
> Now, if a parent write causes the same behaviour as a child write, then
> my point is moot.
Daniel and I discussed this issue when Daniel first came up with
the idea of doing page table COW. He seemed a bit confused by
fork semantics when we first discussed this idea, too ;)
You're right though, both parent and child need to react in the
same way, preferably _without_ having to walk all of the parent's
page tables and mark them read-only ...
kind regards,
Rik
--
"Linux holds advantages over the single-vendor commercial OS"
-- Microsoft's "Competing with Linux" document
http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/