Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Message-ID: <006e01c1a96a$f60429a0$aace0544@CX535256D> From: "Barubary" To: Subject: A real fork() on NT Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 00:48:59 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/