From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from re-prd-fep-045.btinternet.com (mailomta6-re.btinternet.com [213.120.69.99]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7C793858D20 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2023 13:41:47 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org A7C793858D20 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=dronecode.org.uk Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=dronecode.org.uk Received: from re-prd-rgout-003.btmx-prd.synchronoss.net ([10.2.54.6]) by re-prd-fep-045.btinternet.com with ESMTP id <20230811134146.HKSX21611.re-prd-fep-045.btinternet.com@re-prd-rgout-003.btmx-prd.synchronoss.net> for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2023 14:41:46 +0100 Authentication-Results: btinternet.com; auth=pass (PLAIN) smtp.auth=jonturney@btinternet.com; bimi=skipped X-SNCR-Rigid: 64D171FB006A14D2 X-Originating-IP: [86.139.199.163] X-OWM-Source-IP: 86.139.199.163 (GB) X-OWM-Env-Sender: jonturney@btinternet.com X-VadeSecure-score: verdict=clean score=0/300, class=clean X-RazorGate-Vade: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedviedrleekgdeiiecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemuceutffkvffkuffjvffgnffgvefqofdpqfgfvfenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedtudenucenucfjughrpefkffggfgfuvfhfhfgjtgfgsehtjeertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpeflohhnucfvuhhrnhgvhicuoehjohhnrdhtuhhrnhgvhiesughrohhnvggtohguvgdrohhrghdruhhkqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeffkeeigfdujeehteduiefgjeeltdelgeelteekudetfedtffefhfeufefgueettdenucfkphepkeeirddufeelrdduleelrdduieefnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehhvghloheplgduledvrdduieekrddurddutdeingdpihhnvghtpeekiedrudefledrudelledrudeifedpmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehjohhnrdhtuhhrnhgvhiesughrohhnvggtohguvgdrohhrghdruhhkpdhnsggprhgtphhtthhopedupdhrtghpthhtoheptgihghifihhnqdgrphhpshestgihghifihhnrdgtohhmpdhrvghvkffrpehhohhsthekiedqudefledqudelledqudeifedrrhgrnhhgvgekiedqudefledrsghttggvnhhtrhgrlhhplhhushdrtghomhdprghuthhhpghushgvrhepjhhonhhtuhhrnhgvhiessghtihhnthgvrhhnvghtrdgtohhmpdhgvghokffrpefiuedpoffvtefjohhstheprhgvqdhprhguqdhrghhouhhtqddttdef X-RazorGate-Vade-Verdict: clean 0 X-RazorGate-Vade-Classification: clean Received: from [192.168.1.106] (86.139.199.163) by re-prd-rgout-003.btmx-prd.synchronoss.net (5.8.814.02) (authenticated as jonturney@btinternet.com) id 64D171FB006A14D2 for cygwin-apps@cygwin.com; Fri, 11 Aug 2023 14:41:46 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 14:41:44 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.14.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Testsuite update To: "cygwin-apps@cygwin.com" References: <20230804124723.9236-1-jon.turney@dronecode.org.uk> Content-Language: en-GB From: Jon Turney In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_BARRACUDACENTRAL,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On 08/08/2023 19:19, Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin-apps wrote: > On Aug 8 17:02, Jon Turney via Cygwin-apps wrote: >> On 07/08/2023 09:55, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>> On Aug 4 13:47, Jon Turney wrote: >>>> This gets us down to no permanent failures in the testsuite in CI. >> >> There is an intermittent failure in kill01, which I need to do something >> about before turning on taking notice of the testsuite result in CI. >> >> Effectively, all this does is: >> >> pid = fork(); >> if (pid == 0) { >> pause(); >> } else { >> kill(pid, SIGKILL); >> waitpid(pid, &status, 0); >> } >> >> This is quite easy to demonstrate with 'winsup.api/ltp/kill01 -i 1000', >> which repeats the test, succeeding until it hangs. >> >> Looking at the strace output, I would guess it's some race condition where a >> child process isn't yet in a position to receive a signal immediately after >> fork() returns in the parent (so the signal is dropped, and the parent >> blocks indefinitely in waitpid waiting for the child to terminate) >> >> I'm not sure if that's fixable (or worth effort), so maybe just adding a >> small delay in the test is the thing to do... :) > > It might be worth looking into it to make this more reliable, but the > patch is fine for the time being, of course. Thanks. Sorry for sending this to the wrong list.