On Sun Aug 12 05:40:12 GMT 2018, alex@musolino.id.au wrote:
> What's the point of the segattach?  Can you not just add RFMEM to the
> rfork flags?
char	output[4096];
output would be shared, and the child process uses it for the exec
path stuff.
I thought about using RFMEM at first, but it ended up being simpler
this way.

> Also, you probably ought to be setting t0 again before the second call
> to exec.
You would miss out on accounting for 9p latency for the first exec()
attempt, but I think you’re right, since the fact that t0 is set
after the fork() indicates we’re not worried about absolute time
from the parent process’ perspective.

Attached diff contains that change.