bug in execl

bug in execl

[Jason Moxham]

 
 
 Bug in execl()
 ---------------
 
 Under B20.1+gcc-2.95.2 running on NT/98 under a "dos" window (not bash)
 
 prog1.exe consists of
 
 {signal(SIGHUP,SIG_IGN);
 //some stuff
 execl("prog2.exe","prog2.exe",argv[1],argv[2],argv[3],0);
 return 0;}
 
 prog2.exe consists of
 
 {signal(SIGHUP,SIG_IGN);
 // stuff
 return 0;}
 
 I pretty sure the details of the program don't matter
 
 No problem running it , however using task manager on NT we see that 
 when prog2.exe is running , prog1.exe is still there when it should be
 overwriten .
 
 So a series of execl calls could easily fill up all memory , when the
 only memory required is for the program currently executing
 
 
 
 Thanks
 
Jason Moxham
jlm@maths.soton.ac.uk


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: bug in execl

[Chris Faylor]

On Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 12:22:13PM +0000, Jason Moxham wrote:
> 
> 
> Bug in execl()
> ---------------
> 
> Under B20.1+gcc-2.95.2 running on NT/98 under a "dos" window (not bash)
> 
> prog1.exe consists of
> 
> {signal(SIGHUP,SIG_IGN);
> //some stuff
> execl("prog2.exe","prog2.exe",argv[1],argv[2],argv[3],0);
> return 0;}
> 
> prog2.exe consists of
> 
> {signal(SIGHUP,SIG_IGN);
> // stuff
> return 0;}
> 
> I pretty sure the details of the program don't matter
> 
> No problem running it , however using task manager on NT we see that 
> when prog2.exe is running , prog1.exe is still there when it should be
> overwriten .
> 
> So a series of execl calls could easily fill up all memory , when the
> only memory required is for the program currently executing

Sorry.  That's the best we can do when emulating exec on Windows.

If you run this under bash or sh you should note that this behavior does
not occur.

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com