So if I understand well, if a fork(2) come with execve(2) it freed automatically the resources. However if fork(2) come with any allocator, I should take care of it ?
On 2024-09-22T17:42:28.000+02:00, Otto Moerbeek <o...@drijf.net> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 22, 2024 at 05:33:36PM +0200, bi...@iscarioth.org wrote: > >> Sorry for disturbing you, again... >> >> Does it means we should also free virtual memory from the child >> >> process before exiting ? > > All resources used by a process are freed automatically when the > > process ends. Typically, a fork in the child is followed by an > > execve(2) call, which replaces the current process by a new one, > whith > > only a few things inherited. > > -Otto > >> On 2024-09-22T10:27:56.000+02:00, Otto Moerbeek <o...@drijf.net> >> >> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Sep 22, 2024 at 10:08:56AM +0200, bi...@iscarioth.org >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hello OpenBSD team >>>> >>>> I'm having a little trouble understanding how this works. >>>> >>>> of fork(2), according to man. It's an exact copy of the >>>> parent >>>> >>>> process. >>>> >>>> There are limitations that are explicit in the man. However, >>>> >>>> I wanted to know if the pointers we use are the same. >>>> >>>> For example, if I had allocated 4 bytes in my parent process, >>>> I >>>> >>>> would >>>> >>>> launch the fork... >>>> >>>> If I release this address from the child, is the father's >>>> pointer >>>> >>>> still intact, or is it released? >>>> >>>> Translated with DeepL.com [http://DeepL.com] >>>> [http://DeepL.com] (free version) >>> >>> It's an exact copy, all memory allocations remain the same. The >>> >>> trick >>> >>> is the new process virtual memory space is seperate, so the >>> equal >>> >>> pointer actually refer to different sets of memory (each >>> process has >>> >>> it's onwn virual memory space). So an allocatoon or free done >>> by the >>> >>> parent or child does not interfere with the other process. >>> >>> -Otto
