4 ms·
It's a political thing. Microsoft isn't going to break themselves. It's more a question of, if you go against all the warnings and use NTDLL in the non-recommen
by jart 7y ago
It's a political thing. Microsoft isn't going to break themselves. It's more a question of, if you go against all the warnings and use NTDLL in the non-recommended way (i.e. having it be a hard dependency w/o fallback) Microsoft can and will fuck you if they don't like what you're doing. Just as recently as a few months ago, I saw a startup in Sunnyvale called Crossmeta basically throw in the towel, because they built their whole product around this one NTDLL fork() hack, which had been around for nearly decades. Then MS rolled out a security update, and poof, it's gone.
- mehrdadn 7y agoWow, cool story. The part I find surprising is -- there was a fork() hack on NTDLL that actually worked until recently? I know tons of people had tried to get it to work (including the Cygwin folks and also including me) and faced failure after failure!
- KyleJ61782 7y agoTechnically the Windows native layer supports fork()-like abilities, but the problem is that the Win32 subsystem and dependent layers (GUI, etc.) don't have fork() copy-on-write capability. So even if you were able to fork a process, you'd still have to deal with duplicating all of the stuff built on top. In fact, the old POSIX compatible subsystem layer utilized this functionality to actually provide a compliant fork(). Of course this all ignores the fact that Win32 processes are heavier duty than Linux processes (though I don't know if that's due to Win32 subsystem overhead or not). Look at any benchmark and you see an order of magnitude difference in process creation times. You're much better off creating threads instead.
- Kipters 7y agoWSL1 also uses that functionality
- mehrdadn 7y agoHuh? WSL1 doesn't use NTDLL, it implements its own stuff.
- Kipters 7y agoI wasn't specifically talking about any ntdll call, but in one of their "deep dive" videos on Channel 9 they state WSL1 supports fork() because the NT kernel natively supports it, it just isn't exposed on the normal API surface
- mehrdadn 7y agoI think you got confused. The "native layer" referred to NTDLL in the comment you replied to. I think(?) that's what the earlier POSIX subsystem was built on. That's why I said WSL doesn't use that.
- jart 7y agoPretty much all CPUs with MMUs since MULTICS inherently support fork(). So for NT it's a question of prohibiting the behavior. Microsoft's research department even writes papers about how they disagree with fork(). I was truly impressed by the work they did implementing Linux ABI in the NT executive for WSL 1.0. Big change in policy. It's going to be sad to watch it go, but might be for the best. A really well-written ghetto for Linux code is still a ghetto.
- asveikau 7y agoThis is a weird statement. The MMU doesn't natively do a fork(). The kernel needs to implement the copy-on-write-fault. I.e. all pages marked read only and the write fault handler needs to realize a given address is COW and perform a lazy copy.
- jart 7y agoLet's consider looking at this in terms of data structures, and ignoring the APIs. Your CPU has this: register char (*(*(*(*ram)[512])[512])[512])[4096] asm(cr3) Your CPU resolves every pointer memory access through those tables under the hood. It's an extremely powerful data structure. It can let you allocate linear memory like a central banker prints money. But if you're a Windows user, then only Microsoft is authorized to access it, and they don't want you having the central banker privileges that are needed in order to implement fork(). That's the way the cookie crumbles.
- eps 7y agoLooked up Crossmeta just now and it appears that there “threw in the towel” just on their fork() emulation, not on the whole project that does quite a bit more. http://crossmeta.org http://crossmeta.org