Re: cygwin-1.7.10-1 fork - address space needed by ... already in use

[Denis Excoffier <cygwin@Denis-Excoffier.org>]

On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 10:59:19AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Mar  5 08:09, Denis Excoffier wrote:
>> > On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 06:22:10PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> > >> Denis, can you please give the latest snapshot DLL a try in all
>> > >> circumstances in which you saw the above kind of fork problems in
>> > >> 1.7.10?  I applied a patch which should now work out the differences
>> > >> between linked and loaded DLLs better than before.
>> > >> 
>> > 
>> > I am now unable to report any problem of that sort. I have compiled the
>> > cygwin1.dll, the new gcc-4.7.0-rc-20120302, and several other
>> > packages with no occurrence of such a message.
>> 
>> Thanks for testing.  Can you lease run this a while longer, just to
>> be sure?
I'll replace cygwin1.dll with the next snapshot.
>> 
>> > I've only to report that i observe some time to time the "something
>> > failed for pid" message (see several instances below). "Win32 Error 5"
>> > is ERROR_ACCESS_DENIED i suppose (in winerrors.h). I don't know
>> > what we are expected to do with these. In addition, they do not seem
>> > to hurt much.
>> > [...]
>> >    947 [main] sh 660! _pinfo::dup_proc_pipe: something failed for pid 0: res 660, hProcess 0x6C8, wr_proc_pipe 0x758 vs. 0x758, Win32 error 5 
>> >      2 [main] sh 3360! _pinfo::dup_proc_pipe: something failed for pid 0: res 3360, hProcess 0x6BC, wr_proc_pipe 0x758 vs. 0x758, Win32 error 5 
>> >   1345 [main] sh 3772! _pinfo::dup_proc_pipe: something failed for pid 0: res 3772, hProcess 0x6CC, wr_proc_pipe 0x758 vs. 0x758, Win32 error 5 
>> > [...]
>> 
>> Actually, I don't quite understand them.  The pid is apparently not
>> initialized yet, at the time the message occurs.  The code in question
>> tries to duplicate a pipe handle into another process and fails.  But
>> the process handle to the other has been created by this process, so it
>> should have all rights to duplicate the handle.  Hmm.  What command
>> were you running at the time?  Maybe it is reproducible.
You mean, may be it is debuggable?

Please first apply the following, and provide me with further
instrumentation in order that i can narrow down the problem when it
occurs.

*** winsup0/cygwin/pinfo.cc	Wed Feb 15 15:46:18 2012
--- winsup/cygwin/pinfo.cc	Mon Mar  5 12:53:30 2012
***************
*** 1001,1007 ****
      {
        wr_proc_pipe = orig_wr_proc_pipe;
        warn_printf ("something failed for pid %d: res %d, hProcess %p, wr_proc_pipe %p vs. %p, %E",
! 		   res, pid, hProcess, wr_proc_pipe, orig_wr_proc_pipe);
      }
    else
      {
--- 1001,1007 ----
      {
        wr_proc_pipe = orig_wr_proc_pipe;
        warn_printf ("something failed for pid %d: res %d, hProcess %p, wr_proc_pipe %p vs. %p, %E",
! 		   pid, res, hProcess, wr_proc_pipe, orig_wr_proc_pipe);
      }
    else
      {

Regards,

Denis Excoffier.

--
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