Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 08:18:22 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Cc: Dag-Erling =?utf-8?q?Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no>, Maslan <maslanbsd@gmail.com>, Max Laier <max@love2party.net>, Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl> Subject: Re: sosend() and mbuf Message-ID: <200908060818.23158.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <86ab2f34ay.fsf@ds4.des.no> References: <319cceca0908030119i3432a495ya60aa431dab0e1b1@mail.gmail.com> <20090804093036.GN1292@hoeg.nl> <86ab2f34ay.fsf@ds4.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 04 August 2009 12:57:25 pm Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav wrote: > Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl> writes: > > Maslan <maslanbsd@gmail.com> writes: > > > However, when i checked the pid & tid of the new created thread it > > > was not the same as the parent nor as the proc0 & thread0 > > I am not sure, but sharing another process's address space doesn't have > > to imply it shares the same pid, right? >=20 > The man page explicitly states that if no process is specified, the new > thread is assigned to proc0, which has a valid filedesc table, valid > creds etc., so this shouldn't be a problem. However, he's getting a > different PID, which shouldn't happen. Either the man page is wrong, or > things were different in 7. proc0 does not have a fully valid file descriptor table. It has a structur= e,=20 but fd_[cjr]dir are not initialized to point at anything. File descriptors= =20 are a property of userland processes, not of kernel processes. However,=20 fd_[cjr]dir need to be valid to perform any namei() lookup even if one is=20 simply going to do a vn_open() on the resulting vnode (which is more=20 approprate for kernel code to do, if it is to open a file at all). =2D-=20 John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200908060818.23158.jhb>