2 ms·

>It feels crazy that we don't have a way to directly express the latter thing Isn't that what posix_spawn is for?

• yxhuvud 4mo ago
  And how do you think posix_spawn is implemented?
  • JdeBP 4mo ago
    This is an oft-overlooked point. An obvious place to look for improving fork+execve is to see whether posix_spawn can be given more efficient kernel mechanisms to be based upon. And of course that has already been done. On NetBSD, posix_spawn() is a fully-fledged system call and much of the work is done in kernel mode. * https://blog.netbsd.org/tnf/entry/posix_spawn_syscall_added https://blog.netbsd.org/tnf/entry/posix_spawn_syscall_added
    • dcrazy 4mo ago
      This is literally discussed in the article this post links to.
      • JdeBP 4mo ago
        Not really. They didn't get anywhere near as far as noticing the prior art of NetBSD, not even on the mailing list discussion behind that article.
• toast0 4mo ago
  posix_spawn addresses the need from userspace. Under the hood, it's still doing more or less a fork/exec, with the baggage that comes with it. A syscall would be nicer.