Moving beyond fork() + exec() (lwn.net)

I'm not surprised Chen's patch was rejected; that's an extremely niche usecase not worth supporting. With my shell developer hat on, I agree with the closing "developers would likely welcome a native implementation that isn't (unlike the current implementation) hiding fork() and exec() under the covers".

Maybe tangentially related but I always think it's silly that every linux process has the same libgcc_so.so.1 loaded into memory for each process even though the raw binary for the library is exactly the same so you end up with like 800 copies of libgcc_so.so.1 in memory.

I mean maybe this has been optimized for already and I don't know what I'm talking about but maybe someone with more knowledge about the kernel knows? Is this something we simply can't optimize for because of security implications?

I'm guessing that a big part of the problem with moving away from fork() in general is that each new process needs a copy of the parent process' environment anyway, right?

There is lots of discussion on this old API here on hacker news, for instance https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31739794

This seems unnecessary to me. In the example, the core of git should be a library yo can link so you don't need to run the binary. That would be better in every way.

I just ran into this recently, where I had an obscure bug caused by needing to close more file descriptors in the forked process. "I want a clone of the current process" is just way less common in my experience than "I want a completely new process". It feels crazy that we don't have a way to directly express the latter thing, and can only approximate it by cloning and then fixing things up in post.

There are a lot of slightly different fork-exec-like things in the concept space and it's hard to imagine one approach satisfying them all. IMO it would be interesting to take an approach analogous-ish to sched_ext_ops where you built the rough flow chart of a combined fork-exec, but with hooks built to enable ebpf to change behavior or skip the bits these sophisticated users don't want/need.

The elegance of the fork() + exec() model is that every kind of configuration can be done after the fork using all the usual APIs. Every attempt to replace it with a combined call that I have seen so far seemed fundamentally poorer because it needs to add all configuration options as parameters to the call and then do this in away that you can extend it later and does not become a mess.

> fork() is a relatively expensive system call; it must copy the entire process state (including memory) for the child process. Many optimizations have been made over the years, but a fork is still a fundamentally costly operation. To make things worse, a fork() call is often immediately followed by an exec(), which will discard all of that memory that was so carefully copied for the child.

It's weird to leave out a mention of copy-on-write - the optimisation that means that you don't copy over all the memory.

Related to the discussion: "A fork() in the road": https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/...

> ABSTRACT

> The received wisdom suggests that Unix’s unusual combination of fork() and exec() for process creation was an inspired design. In this paper, we argue that fork was a clever hack for machines and programs of the 1970s that has long outlived its usefulness and is now a liability. We catalog the ways in which fork is a terrible abstraction for the modern programmer to use, describe how it compromises OS implementations, and propose alternatives.

> As the designers and implementers of operating systems, we should acknowledge that fork’s continued existence as a first-class OS primitive holds back systems research, and deprecate it. As educators, we should teach fork as a historical artifact, and not the first process creation mechanism students encounter.

> "If you are repeatedly creating large processes, you are already doing it wrong. The fix is in user space, not the kernel."

Every couple of years, someone claims they have "the solution" implying everyone else who came before them didn't know what they were doing.

The most astonishing part is that this is dated June 5th, 2026.

I.e. a year that starts with 20, not 19.

It is a weirdly common misconception that that fork() is cheap... it is O(N) on the size of the process, and it always has been.

Yes, it's copy on write... but there is a linear relationship between the size of the process and the number of page table entries required to represent it.

The whole approach of using fork seems to be unnatural for me. In many cases (even in the majority of them) it's not needed to inherit the whole structure of the parent process, but to start a given executable. Windows does this better with its CreateProcessW interface.

Fork always seemed conceptually terrible even when I first learned about it.. If you want to do one thing (start a process) you should not have to use a mysterious incantation that does a different unrelated thing (forks your process) in order to do it.

I am curious about what the best way to handle the example in the article of one process spawning many git subprocesses is. Surely it just doesn't make sense to repeatedly start git from scratch in the course of a long-running parent operation. What's the low cost abstraction for the same result, though?

Aesthetically I have no intention of moving beyond. I'm content with my kernels scheduler and how it maps "heavyweight" processes to cores.

I do use threaded code. It's significantly harder to write and reason about. (45 years in to a CS career, ageing out)

You have to be clever to do better than clever people. Clever people bootstrapped me into fork()/exec() and I know my limits.

i thought this was all fixed with special modes of clone that are optimized and don't actually copy anything (ie, it creates a new deficient process that can pretty much only exec)?

The things you can do between fork and exec are sometimes underestimated. Off the top of my head, you can call dup2(), you can set a process group id, probably a few other things.

If you contrast that with win32, where you optionally pack a bunch of initial values into a struct, win32 is a much more narrow, less pleasant, less freeform interface, where it is harder to introduce more features.

But I think there is already posix_spawn to imitate that philosophy on Unix-like OSs.

The problem with replacing exec/fork is that you usually want to configure new process: for example, set up signal handlers, close or open FDs, switch namespaces, setup seccomp, adjust permissions. And all the system calls to do it apply only to the current process and you need something to replace them. The proposal in the article was to create a new API for this.

My idea is that we could make a new syscall, for example "spawn", that creates a new empty process, loads some lightweight "loader" into it, and passes arbitrary configuration data. The loader configures the process and exec()'s the main program. This allows to avoid forking the memory and keep existing APIs, but still requires to fork file descriptors and other things.

I liked the other proposal where you can create a blank process and then force it to make syscalls, ending with execve. That doesn't require a bunch of special data structures to hold the syscalls you want to do.

If fork and exec can exhibit persistent and algebraic behavior (beyond its CoW nature) that would not only be more useful but more interesting to use, for example using it for doing lazy evaluation

Huh, LWN has moved to (sometimes) requiring a click to proceed past the subscription pitch to the actual article. I feel like this may have an inverse effect (insistent begging to the point of inserting additional obstacles = angry/insulted users that are less likely to pay).

This isn’t moving beyond fork and exec at all. It’s adding a complicated API for a marginal gain for a niche use case, and ignoring the actual big bottleneck of fork

[flagged]