linux-kernel - Re: Alternative to vfork(2) with overcommit off

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1343668599.2153.12.camel@iscandar.digidescorp.com>
Date:	Mon, 30 Jul 2012 12:16:39 -0500
From:	"Steven J. Magnani" <steve@...idescorp.com>
To:	Shea Levy <shea@...alevy.com>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Alternative to vfork(2) with overcommit off

On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 12:59 -0400, Shea Levy wrote: 
> Hello,
> 
> The vfork(2) manpage states "It is rather unfortunate that Linux revived this specter from the past", but on systems with overcommit turned off fork(2) can be needlessly prohibitive when the goal is to execve(2) right away. Is there a third alternative for the fork/execve case? If not, should the manpage really be so dismissive of vfork?

On noMMU (embedded) systems, fork() is not implementable and vfork() is
the only option.
Not everyone can afford a Lexus.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven J. Magnani               "I claim this network for MARS!
www.digidescorp.com              Earthling, return my space modulator!"

#include <standard.disclaimer>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/