From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24842 invoked by alias); 29 Jul 2013 13:42:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 24817 invoked by uid 89); 29 Jul 2013 13:42:25 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.1 Received: from Unknown (HELO calimero.vinschen.de) (217.91.18.234) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 13:42:24 +0000 Received: by calimero.vinschen.de (Postfix, from userid 500) id 840A15200F1; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 15:42:16 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 13:48:00 -0000 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: child (xterm) fork failure as it loads to different address Message-ID: <20130729134216.GA4166@calimero.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <51F65369.9020001@gmail.com> <51F66FB9.6000802@cs.utoronto.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <51F66FB9.6000802@cs.utoronto.ca> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SW-Source: 2013-07/txt/msg00650.txt.bz2 On Jul 29 09:35, Ryan Johnson wrote: > http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#TOFU > > On 29/07/2013 8:15 AM, Ariel Burbaickij wrote: > >OK, thank, you, so usual suspects. Now, removing, antivirus and stuff > >will not be possible in this particular environment but adjustments in > >the configuration are well possible, provided I will be able to prove > >to administrators that troubles, indeed, stem from antivirus and co. > >Now, I see in the FAQ in 4.42 section that these troubles were traced > >and attributed to antiviri programs. Any more details about how they > >were traced exactly, so that I can re-trace them too and provide a > >proof, if needed? > The proof usually goes something like this: > > 1. People report fork() failures on the list, and a correlation is > noted between those failures and presence of app/antivirus X. > 2. It is confirmed (or at least considered highly probable) that X > performs dll injection, the root cause of these sorts of fork() > failures. > 3. Somebody tries disabling/removing X and the fork() failures go away. > 4. X gets added to BLODA and reports of fork() failures, not > attributable to X, disappear from the list. > > Eventually the process repeats when Y appears. There's no Y. The successor of X is allegedly called Wayland. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer 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