On Nov 23 17:43, Huang Bambo wrote: > 2009/11/23 Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cyg...@cygwin.com>: > > On Nov 22 09:33, Huang Bambo wrote: > >> And there's another quesiton: > >> The handle of chile process( created by fork ) seems never been closed > >> bye parent process. Is it need to be closed? > > > > I don't understand the question. There's one dangling socket handle left > > and I know where and why it happens. Other than that, I don't see any > > other socket handling which is left open accidentally. > > > While run my last test code, every time comes one connection, there > are 3 handle leak( I monited it by Process Explorer( from > www.sysinternals.com)), one is the chile process's handle, one is of > "Section \BaseNamedObjects\cygwin1S5-9770bb4ddbd85dca\cygpid.xxxx", > the other one is of \Device\Afd. > I mean is there any other leak with those handles.
The leak is a result of the parent process not calling wait(2) or waitpid(2) to reap the child process. If you let the process properly call wait/waitpid, you won't see a leak, except for the current socket leak this thread is about. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
