[1] http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/fo...
POSIX C documents which function is async safe, and specifies that only those functions may be used in certain contexts lest there be undefined behavior. Rust at this moment does not document which of it's functions are safe to use in such contexts, and I'm not sure what the situation with OCaml is.
Sharing state between threads in a language such as C is complex enough, but in a managed language there seem to be few guarantees. Go and Rust were designed with this in mind and fundamentally only allow either sharing data by way of channels, or by way of data structures whose reading and writing is race-free.
Asking any compiler to prove that your program's fork() is safe is asking an awful lot. :) If you're referring to Rust's notion of safe/unsafe code, "unsafe" explicitly refers to unsafe memory operations. It won't cover operational issues such as "threads won't be cloned" or "signal handlers will get dropped" during a fork. (Even if they were tracked: are those behaviours safe, or unsafe? That depends on the semantics of the program.)
Ada was another language designed with safety in mind. They chose to shove fork() into an "Unsafe POSIX Primitives" package -- in other words, use these at your own risk. I think this was a good call.
But this is not true at all, calling any async safe function is save, including exec, which is simply an async safe function.
Furthermore, Rust's standard librarty does not even expose exec directly, but does expose a function to call arbitrary code before exec, but this function is marked as unsafe and the only documentation is that “care must be taken”.
For instance, socket activation in the launchd style that systemd and stocketd use must execute various socket related operations after forking, and before exec, these operations are async safe, and thus it is possible to do this from a multithreaded program, but in Rust there are no guarantees whether various functions dealing with sockets are async safe. They might call malloc or use mutexes internally; one has no idea.
> Asking any compiler to prove that your program's fork() is safe is asking an awful lot.
I'm not asking that at all, but it's actually not difficult at all. All it needs is a trait for async safety on functions, and any function that is marked as async safe can only call other functions internally that are. That is all it takes to do it savely.
But I'm not asking for a compiler proof; I'm simply asking that Rust document which functions are async safe and which are not, so that programmers can do it in unsafe code.
> Ada was another language designed with safety in mind. They chose to shove fork() into an "Unsafe POSIX Primitives" package -- in other words, use these at your own risk. I think this was a good call.
And they document what functions are async safe; Rust has no documentation nor guarantees about this.
