Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID:	<006e01c1a96a$f60429a0$aace0544@CX535256D>
From:	"Barubary" <barubary AT cox DOT net>
To:	<cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	A real fork() on NT
Date:	Wed, 30 Jan 2002 00:48:59 -0800
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000

When looking at XP's CreateProcessW (or rather, CreateProcessInternalW) I
noticed something strange about the way it creates a process.  It seems that
NT is sort of capable of a fork() command.  The function NtCreateProcess
appears to create a "blank" process, into which you can put anything you
want.  After NtCreateProcess, kernel32 maps the EXE into that new process's
memory space, creates a thread, and finally calls NtResumeThread to start
its execution.

If this long, nasty, scattered function could be reverse engineered, it
should be possible to create a true fork() for NT, instead of doing the
normal cygwin "hack" method.

-- Barubary


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -