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
From:	Christopher January <ccj00 AT doc DOT ic DOT ac DOT uk>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: A real fork() on NT
Date:	Wed, 30 Jan 2002 11:03:00 +0000
X-Mailer:	KMail [version 1.3.1]
References:	<006e01c1a96a$f60429a0$aace0544 AT CX535256D>
In-Reply-To:	<006e01c1a96a$f60429a0$aace0544@CX535256D>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Message-Id:	<E16VsW4-0001P8-00@diver.doc.ic.ac.uk>

> 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.
Coincidentally, I was looking into a similar thing myself. Windows NT has a 
POSIX subsystem that's capable of doing fork()'s so it is obviously possible. 
Have you any ideas of the arguments passed to the function or what it returns?

Chris

--
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 -