> Practically if you don't use threads you can do anything in the child process you can do in the parent. Any env that doesn't support that breaks decades of important Unix software.
Not true. I mentioned PKCS#11 elsewhere in this post or thread. The PKCS#11 case is more generally about devices, or even TCP and other connections. You can't share, say, a file descriptor connected to an IMAP server (or whatever) between the parent and the child (not without adding synchronization, though that need not mean mutexes).
That's like saying you can't write to the same file willy nilly after any context creation. In context, I obviously meant that you can perform the same actions in the child or the parent, not that you somehow get free synchronization for accessing all kernel objects.
Also, you can specify CKF_INTERFACE_FORK_SAFE if you want a handle in PKCS#11 that handles synchronization enough internally to call from both the child and the parent simultaneously.
Not true. I mentioned PKCS#11 elsewhere in this post or thread. The PKCS#11 case is more generally about devices, or even TCP and other connections. You can't share, say, a file descriptor connected to an IMAP server (or whatever) between the parent and the child (not without adding synchronization, though that need not mean mutexes).