Hi Camm,
On 4/23/2025 12:46 PM, Camm Maguire via Cygwin wrote:
Greetings! Trying to isolate this as you suggest. On first attempt,
copying the exact same strings and calls into a main() function
succeeds. I am near stumped, and can only guess that the addresses
returned by malloc on _init of
Greetings! Trying to isolate this as you suggest. On first attempt,
copying the exact same strings and calls into a main() function
succeeds. I am near stumped, and can only guess that the addresses
returned by malloc on _init of the file_actions and attr structures is
triggering something. Sug
Hi Camm,
On 4/22/2025 12:31 PM, Camm Maguire via Cygwin-apps wrote:
Greetings! posix_spawnp is returning 10, or ECHILD, on the following
call. At least on my first reading (:-)), ECHILD is not one of the
documented errors for fork, vfork, or clone referenced by the Linux
manpage for posix_spaw
Greetings! posix_spawnp is returning 10, or ECHILD, on the following
call. At least on my first reading (:-)), ECHILD is not one of the
documented errors for fork, vfork, or clone referenced by the Linux
manpage for posix_spawnp. Suggestions?
Take care,
Greetings, and thanks so much!
Mark Geisert via Cygwin-apps writes:
> On 4/19/2025 1:42 PM, Camm Maguire via Cygwin-apps wrote:
>> Greetings!
>> posix_spawn is returning non-zero without setting errno:
>>massert(!posix_spawnp(&pid, *p1, &file_actions, &attr, (void
>> *)p1, environ));
>> Is
On 4/19/2025 1:42 PM, Camm Maguire via Cygwin-apps wrote:
Greetings!
posix_spawn is returning non-zero without setting errno:
massert(!posix_spawnp(&pid, *p1, &file_actions, &attr, (void *)p1,
environ));
Is this intended to be supported? Is it known to be working or not
working elsewhere
Hi Eric,
On Jul 31 13:58, Eric Blake via Cygwin wrote:
> Following up on an older thread:
>
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 03:49:20PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> > The glibc bug points to the sample posix_spawn() implementation in
> > POSIX XRAT - but that example implementation is non-normative and
>
Following up on an older thread:
On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 03:49:20PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> The glibc bug points to the sample posix_spawn() implementation in
> POSIX XRAT - but that example implementation is non-normative and
> known buggy, so it is not safe to rely on it.
>
> Clarifying the
On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 04:00:15PM -0400, gs-cygwin@gluelogic.com wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 09:31:38PM +0200, Bruno Haible wrote:
> > Glenn wrote:
> > > > > https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/winbase/ns-winbase-startupinfoexa
> > > > >
> > > > > and the PROC_THREAD_ATTR
On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 03:14:59AM -0400, gs-cygwin@gluelogic.com wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 08:44:51PM +0200, Bruno Haible via Cygwin wrote:
> > Btw, there are two more functions in the posix_spawn family meanwhile:
> > * posix_spawn_file_actions_addchdir_np
> > implemented by glib
On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 09:31:38PM +0200, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Glenn wrote:
> > > > https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/winbase/ns-winbase-startupinfoexa
> > > >
> > > > and the PROC_THREAD_ATTRIBUTE_HANDLE_LIST argument described in
> > > >
> > > > https://learn.microsoft.com/en
Glenn wrote:
> > > https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/winbase/ns-winbase-startupinfoexa
> > >
> > > and the PROC_THREAD_ATTRIBUTE_HANDLE_LIST argument described in
> > >
> > > https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/processthreadsapi/nf-processthreadsapi-updateprocthr
On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 05:40:52PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin wrote:
> On Apr 20 16:58, Bruno Haible via Cygwin wrote:
> > Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > > Hmm. Your code uses lpReserved2 for that, but the functionality is
> > > > one implemented in MSVCRT. For obvious reasons, Cygwin exec
On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 04:58:20PM +0200, Bruno Haible via Cygwin wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > Hmm. Your code uses lpReserved2 for that, but the functionality is
> > > one implemented in MSVCRT. For obvious reasons, Cygwin executables
> > > are not linked against msvcrt.dll and we're us
On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 04:40:52PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin wrote:
> On Apr 20 16:21, Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin wrote:
> > On Apr 20 12:18, Bruno Haible via Cygwin wrote:
> > > The "inheritable handles" is a data structure that allows for the
> > > arbitrary reshuffling of fil
On Apr 20 16:58, Bruno Haible via Cygwin wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > Hmm. Your code uses lpReserved2 for that, but the functionality is
> > > one implemented in MSVCRT. For obvious reasons, Cygwin executables
> > > are not linked against msvcrt.dll and we're using lpReserved2 for our
>
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > Hmm. Your code uses lpReserved2 for that, but the functionality is
> > one implemented in MSVCRT. For obvious reasons, Cygwin executables
> > are not linked against msvcrt.dll and we're using lpReserved2 for our
> > own purposes.
>
> Oh, btw., did you know that there'
On Apr 20 16:21, Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin wrote:
> On Apr 20 12:18, Bruno Haible via Cygwin wrote:
> > The "inheritable handles" is a data structure that allows for the
> > arbitrary reshuffling of file descriptors required by posix_spawn
> > (the addopen, adddup2, addclose action
On Apr 20 12:18, Bruno Haible via Cygwin wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > Unfortunately you can't expect any noticable difference on Cygwin by
> > using posix_spawn. While Cygwin has a spawn() family of functions, we
> > don't (and can't... yet) use them.
> >
> > The problem is that we don't
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Unfortunately you can't expect any noticable difference on Cygwin by
> using posix_spawn. While Cygwin has a spawn() family of functions, we
> don't (and can't... yet) use them.
>
> The problem is that we don't have a safe way to perform the spawn
> attributes and file a
On Apr 20 03:14, gs-cygwin.com--- via Cygwin wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 08:44:51PM +0200, Bruno Haible via Cygwin wrote:
> > Btw, there are two more functions in the posix_spawn family meanwhile:
> > * posix_spawn_file_actions_addchdir_np
> > implemented by glibc [1], musl libc, macOS,
On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 08:44:51PM +0200, Bruno Haible via Cygwin wrote:
> Btw, there are two more functions in the posix_spawn family meanwhile:
> * posix_spawn_file_actions_addchdir_np
> implemented by glibc [1], musl libc, macOS, FreeBSD [2], Solaris ≥ 11.3
> used by a few packages (Fi
On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 at 13:56, Bruno Haible via Cygwin wrote:
> Note a typo: line 126541 is on page 3694 not on page 3594.
>
That sentence is scary in and of itself :)
Csaba
--
You can get very substantial performance improvements
by not doing the right thing. - Scott Meyers, An Effective C++11/
Eric Blake wrote:
> POSIX issue now filed as
> https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1674
Thank you very much!
Note a typo: line 126541 is on page 3694 not on page 3594.
Bruno
--
Problem reports: https://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: https://cygwin.com/faq/
Docum
I wrote:
> * posix_spawn_file_actions_addfchdir_np
> implemented in glibc, musl libc
Correction: posix_spawn_file_actions_addfchdir_np is implemented in
glibc, musl libc, FreeBSD ≥ 13.1, macOS ≥ 10.15.
Bruno
--
Problem reports: https://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:
Hi Bruno,
On Apr 17 20:44, Bruno Haible via Cygwin wrote:
> Btw, there are two more functions in the posix_spawn family meanwhile:
> * posix_spawn_file_actions_addchdir_np
> implemented by glibc [1], musl libc, macOS, FreeBSD [2], Solaris ≥ 11.3
> used by a few packages (Firefox, Chromiu
On Apr 18 21:39, Eric Blake via Cygwin wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 12:10:34AM +0200, Bruno Haible wrote:
> > Eric Blake wrote:
> > > we now have implementations in the wild that differ in behavior, and
> > > use security as a reason for the divergence, it is worth getting that
> > > clarified
On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 12:10:34AM +0200, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Eric Blake wrote:
> > we now have implementations in the wild that differ in behavior, and
> > use security as a reason for the divergence, it is worth getting that
> > clarified in POSIX. I'll file a bug against POSIX shortly
>
> Fo
Eric Blake wrote:
> we now have implementations in the wild that differ in behavior, and
> use security as a reason for the divergence, it is worth getting that
> clarified in POSIX. I'll file a bug against POSIX shortly
For the reference, the systems that return ENOEXEC for posix_spawnp
attempti
Hi Eric,
On Apr 18 15:49, Eric Blake via Cygwin wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 11:25:11AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin wrote:
> Jumping in to this conversation a bit belatedly, but as someone on the
> Austin Group that can try to get an answer upstream...
Many thanks for your input, it's
On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 11:25:11AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin wrote:
> Hi Bruno,
>
> On Apr 17 20:44, Bruno Haible via Cygwin wrote:
> > Hi Corinna,
Jumping in to this conversation a bit belatedly, but as someone on the
Austin Group that can try to get an answer upstream...
> But I'm not
Hi Bruno,
On Apr 17 20:44, Bruno Haible via Cygwin wrote:
> Hi Corinna,
>
> > > Would it be possible to change Cygwin's posix_spawnp implementation,
> > > so that both tests succeed?
> >
> > Basically, yes, but...
>
> Thanks!
>
> > > Disclaimer: I have done my tests with Cygwin 2.9.0; so, if t
Hi Corinna,
> > Would it be possible to change Cygwin's posix_spawnp implementation,
> > so that both tests succeed?
>
> Basically, yes, but...
Thanks!
> > Disclaimer: I have done my tests with Cygwin 2.9.0; so, if things have
>
>
Hi Bruno,
On Apr 16 13:46, Bruno Haible via Cygwin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> AFAIU, Cygwin has a working posix_spawn[p] implementation since 2020
> (commit 3fbfcd11fb09d5f47af3043ee47ec5c7d863d872, 2020-08-03, Cygwin 3.1.7).
> [
On Jan 12 13:25, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin wrote:
> > > > Sorry, I am not subscribed to the list so don't have the message to
> > > > reply
> > > > to for threading purposes
>
> > New developer snapshot is up at https://cygwin.com/snapshots/
> > Please test.
>
> This works, and make's "make check"
> > > Sorry, I am not subscribed to the list so don't have the message to reply
> > > to for threading purposes
> New developer snapshot is up at https://cygwin.com/snapshots/
> Please test.
This works, and make's "make check" now gets the same results as it does
when built with --disable-posix-s
On 1/12/2022 5:41 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Jan 11 16:08, Ken Brown wrote:
I don't have time to check this carefully, but it looks to me like the
problem is that process_spawnattr calls setegid and seteuid instead of
setegid32 and seteuid32. This causes truncation of the gid and uid.
You
On Jan 12 11:41, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jan 11 16:08, Ken Brown wrote:
> > On 1/11/2022 1:45 PM, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin wrote:
> > > Sorry, I am not subscribed to the list so don't have the message to reply
> > > to for threading purposes, but attached please find a C reproducer that
> > > w
On Jan 11 16:08, Ken Brown wrote:
> On 1/11/2022 1:45 PM, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin wrote:
> > Sorry, I am not subscribed to the list so don't have the message to reply
> > to for threading purposes, but attached please find a C reproducer that
> > works on x86_64 but fails on i686. The particular i
On 1/11/2022 1:45 PM, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin wrote:
Sorry, I am not subscribed to the list so don't have the message to reply
to for threading purposes, but attached please find a C reproducer that
works on x86_64 but fails on i686. The particular issue seems to be the
POSIX_SPAWN_RESETIDS flag
On Mon, 10 Jan 2022, Jeremy Drake wrote:
> From https://github.com/msys2/MSYS2-packages/issues/2801
>
> MSYS2 recently rebuilt GNU make 4.3, and I found that after rebuilding, it
> broke rather horribly on i686, where any attempt to run a command resulted
> in "Invalid argument" errors. Some debu
On Jan 10 11:38, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin wrote:
> >From https://github.com/msys2/MSYS2-packages/issues/2801
>
> MSYS2 recently rebuilt GNU make 4.3, and I found that after rebuilding, it
> broke rather horribly on i686, where any attempt to run a command resulted
> in "Invalid argument" errors. S
42 matches
Mail list logo
