Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1998-49,: Re: Possible bug in wait4(), 2.1.126-129 ?

# Re: Possible bug in wait4(), 2.1.126-129 ?

H. Peter Anvin (hpa@transmeta.com)
9 Dec 1998 21:23:42 GMT

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Richard Gooch: "Re: umount deleted device"
- Previous message: H. Peter Anvin: "Re: linux-kernel-digest V1 #2839 (writable /proc/<pid>/cmdli"

Followup to: <199811260501.NAA12838@typhaon.ucs.uwa.edu.au>
By author: David Luyer <luyer@ucs.uwa.edu.au>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> Isn't it also fair to say that a Strictly Conforming POSIX.1 Application
> shouldn't fail to function due to being started by something that isn't
> one (crond)? While the behaviour is undefined under POSIX, should it still
> be inherited by a POSIX child? A POSIX personality process should, surely,
> be able to assume it can always wait() on a child, regardless of how
> POSIX-conformant it's parent was?
>

No, it isn't, because there is no way a Strictly Conforming POSIX.1
Application can detect and recover from that condition.

-hpa

    --
        PGP: 2047/2A960705 BA 03 D3 2C 14 A8 A8 BD  1E DF FE 69 EE 35 BD 74
        See http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/ for web page and full PGP public key
            I am Bahá'í -- ask me about it or see http://www.bahai.org/
       "To love another person is to see the face of God." -- Les Misérables

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

- Next message: Richard Gooch: "Re: umount deleted device"
- Previous message: H. Peter Anvin: "Re: linux-kernel-digest V1 #2839 (writable /proc/<pid>/cmdli"