[eesmith]

a1369209993's example snippet appears to be what is implied from section 6 ("REPLACING FORK"), subsection "Low-level: Cross-process operations":

> clean-slate designs [e.g.,40, 43] have demonstrated an alternative model where system calls that modify per-process state are not constrained to merely the current process, but rather can manipulate any process to which the caller has access. This yields the flexibility and orthogonality of the fork/exec model, without most of its drawbacks: a new process starts as an empty address space, and an advanced user may manipulate it in a piecemeal fashion, populating its address-space and kernel context prior to execution, without needing to clone the parent nor run code in the context of the child.

[Dylan16807]

> a1369209993's example snippet appears to be what is implied from section 6 ("REPLACING FORK"), subsection "Low-level: Cross-process operations"

Oh definitely. But why are they saying it "looks kind of familiar..."? That subsection is already the subject of the conversation. Surely they're not saying it looks similar to itself, right?

[eesmith]

Ahh. I thought it was familiar because it was the way one would write that sort of code now, in a fork/exec environment, only replacing the call to change local information into ones to change the child's information.