From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 17:18:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 17:18:37 -0500 Received: from mail.missioncriticallinux.com ([208.51.139.18]:8464 "EHLO missioncriticallinux.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 17:18:26 -0500 Message-ID: <3C3B702C.4BF3819@MissionCriticalLinux.com> Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 14:18:20 -0800 From: Bruce Blinn Organization: Mission Critical Linux X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.6-mclx-hp i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Morton CC: Dave Anderson , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, blinn@mclinux.com Subject: Re: [BUG][PATCH] 2.4.* mlockall(MCL_FUTURE) is broken -- child inherits VM_LOCKED In-Reply-To: <3C3B5D1B.45CBF593@mclinux.com> <3C3B6ADF.4AAABE58@zip.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andrew Morton wrote: > > Dave Anderson wrote: > > > > In 2.4.*, mlockall(MCL_FUTURE) is erroneously inherited by child processes > > across fork() and exec(): > > The Linux manpage says that it is not inherited across either. > > However SUS says that it is not inherited across exec, and > doesn't mention fork() at all. > http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xsh/mlockall.html > > So... Shouldn't we be clearing it in the exec() path? > But, the SUS documentation for fork() says that it does not inherit the memory locks of the parent. It explicitly mentions mlockall(). http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xsh/fork.html