[openbeos] Re: status of OpenBeOS

  • From: "Leon Timmermans" <openbeos@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 12:18:06 +0200

I think it would survive a fork(), but not an exec*().

----- Original Message -----
From: "Axel Dörfler" <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 4:21 AM
Subject: [openbeos] Re: status of OpenBeOS


> François Revol <revol@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > En réponse à Axel Dörfler <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > > > I'd go for adding a permissions byte to ports, areas and sems...
> > > > just good old Unix semantics, with a umask-like variable
> > > > to set default behaviour.
> > > > (a correctly implemented umask... R5 implements it in libroot
> > > > currently,
> > > > so fork doesn't inherit it :^)
> > > Nice, didn't know that :-))
> > > I hope you can live without this feature for OpenBeOS ;-)
> > Hey, how can you pretend to be multiuser and not deal with that ? :P
>
> Hm, BTW shouldn't fork also clone the address space copy-on-write?
> Shouldn't then a userland implementation of umask still work?? Am I
> missing something?
>
> Adios...
>    Axel.
>
>
>
>



Other related posts: