Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

25% Positive

Analyzed from 285 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#fork#exec#child#parent#same#need#copy#macos#suggests#true

Discussion (7 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

nasretdinovabout 2 hours ago
I believe what's being described in the article is the same reason why some shells like fish also use posix_spawn() on macOS instead of fork/exec. Not only is it much faster, but it's also effectively problem-free for multi-threaded applications
cestithabout 2 hours ago
The man page on macOS suggests that if you need the child to be a copy of the parent like you’d get after fork(), that you can fork() then exec() the same program in the child. That gives it enough independence to be safe.

Using fork() without exec() was once a tried and true way to have a parent manage one or more children that just run a different branch of the code after the fork. It doesn’t work as well when you have a lot of async and a lot of fired signals right after forking, though. It gets worse if your signal handlers do more than, for example, assigning a value to a scalar variable and that’s honestly partially true of signal handlers no matter whether you’ve forked or not. That’s probably why Go blocks signals during that time after a fork(), for better or worse. So, TL;DR, if you need to run a child with the same code as the parent, exec() a copy like the manpage suggests especially on macOS.

It’s a shame old Unix code that used this model won’t work as well as they used to across different Unix flavors. At least it's not much hassle to fix.

dmitrygrabout 2 hours ago
fork() was always very restricted in when it could be used and really dangerous even then. It was made for a world where process == thread, and since that ceased to be true it's been a large footgun. Use spawn if you need to launch a process, reconsider your life if your immediate post-fork() syscall is not exec()
edelbitterabout 2 hours ago
But what would the equivalent "do the expensive preparation 1 time, then re-use copy-on-write memory N times" pattern look like, after reconsidering my life?
cestithabout 2 hours ago
The manpage suggests if you need the child to be the same as the parent to exec a copy of the parent in the child right after forking.
oasisaimlessly37 minutes ago
This doesn't allow reusing initialization work via CoW mappings (like GP was asking about).