Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 21:30:37 +0000 (GMT) From: Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: Jake Burkholder <jake@locore.ca>, John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG>, <arch@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: syscall() ABI questions Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.33.0110292129080.62940-100000@herring.nlsystems.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0110291255300.26174-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 29 Oct 2001, Julian Elischer wrote: > But the API for vfork forbids the child from doing a 'ret' after the vfork > returns.. if it does that, all bets are off.... you can do: > vfork(); > exec(); > > and that 's about all that's ok... > I'm not even sure about > vfork(); > exit(); I think the point is that the vfork stub has to return back to the function which is intending to call exec() and therefore exposes the memory location which held the return address to possible corruption (certain corruption considering that the call to exec will push stuff onto the stack). -- Doug Rabson Mail: dfr@nlsystems.com Phone: +44 20 8348 6160 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.33.0110292129080.62940-100000>