X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
	:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=P9s6asQMyQCwh+I6
	laKH5n+/MqJs+NDoGHJAoGuq8MInzx3JKzMsLtZhQQvZaAjCeAio4nUy4XAKYti+
	adTp3AUSZ7XleGRbmghLpeExvTFS3guXmv80K/3Gb34AVJT6JeAaw9dC3iFTeL7Q
	30CLpaI/ZT75XQUidsmmhNVmikI=
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
	:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=3p+AkRXe1r4BOM6N+MEmL7
	nAAO8=; b=m3ZblV3gwh9HCakYPZopukO/CPxTb264C/ShYszz1/188iLJvyk79G
	k7b0tOg4kjnLFAfppY3r8wquwwCrUbgv72gC9IEH89/CPNlJP/87jjDJZKvTpCOG
	uDorNYLi0FlKppFhCYyHAvaqg/9gaHU7XdwxedwJbbQtHLyf6Ec6Q=
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Spam-SWARE-Status:	No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,RDNS_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Received:	by 10.52.188.73 with SMTP id fy9mr21892959vdc.53.1375105372454; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 06:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To:	<51F66FB9.6000802@cs.utoronto.ca>
References:	<CANeJNHrjkr4v_jP3HRbpsDGW5LJOZKjA3Z2r92HAaf0c3ZU4sQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <51F65369 DOT 9020001 AT gmail DOT com> <CANeJNHrZdry8r0hFU-+3AhCocL9TDU4Mr-vWL8xmBn228aSWWg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <51F66FB9 DOT 6000802 AT cs DOT utoronto DOT ca>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2013 15:42:52 +0200
Message-ID:	<CANeJNHp++8d4zpqZw-52fLutotQgiD5ucDiMTd7f7LG_09LsnA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: child (xterm) fork failure as it loads to different address
From:	Ariel Burbaickij <ariel DOT burbaickij AT gmail DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id r6TDhE6e011138

>So no, Windows NT will not work. Neither will Win95/98/2000. Nor will XP SP1/SP2. But if your admins are really >so worried about viruses, they won't let you run those ancient operating systems anyway, because MS no longer >pushes security patches for them.

You misread, I am afraid. I am running Windows 7 here. Question is: Is
it expected that turning on POSIX-compatibility mode (possibly with
downloading of utilities for UNIX subsystem)  should help here or not?


Yes, let me try cygwin64 after I am done with rebasing, provided it is
still necessary, of course :-)

On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Ryan Johnson
<ryan DOT johnson AT cs DOT utoronto DOT ca> 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.
>
> You could also try enabling BLODA detection [1] and see what turns up, or
> run the NirSoft DLL injection detector [2].
>
> [1] http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2012-02/msg00797.html
> [2] http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/injected_dll.html
>
>
>> Now, this is for one thing. Another one, is the
>> possibility to run Windows 7 (in my case) or any Windows  OS, down to
>> and including NT in POSIX-compatible "mode".
>
> From www.cygwin.com:
>>
>> The Cygwin DLL currently works with all recent, commercially released x86
>> 32 bit and 64 bit versions of Windows, starting with Windows XP SP3.
>
> So no, Windows NT will not work. Neither will Win95/98/2000. Nor will XP
> SP1/SP2. But if your admins are really so worried about viruses, they won't
> let you run those ancient operating systems anyway, because MS no longer
> pushes security patches for them.
>
> Given that you seem to have your choice of OS, though, you might try 64-bit
> cygwin. The sheer amount of address space that becomes available, plus some
> careful design decisions for placement of cygwin-related dlls in that space,
> reduces the risk of fork failures considerably.
>
> I don't think anybody has reported a fork failure on cygwin64 yet (knock on
> wood). I recently migrated to 64-bit cygwin with a new Win7/64 install
> myself, and so far have not had to disable Windows Defender; the latter was
> a recurring source of trouble for my previous 32-bit cygwin install on
> Win7/64.
>
> If you can't get cygwin64 running, you may be able to convince your admins
> to whitelist cygwin apps with the AV solution; that has a small chance of
> stopping the dll injection and allowing fork() to succeed. Don't get your
> hopes up, though: most AV leave the dll injection in place even when
> completely disabled system-wide, and just tell the dlls not to do anything
> (other than stepping on cygwin's toes, of course).
>
>
>> Is this step expected to
>> solve or at least alleviate all or at least some the troubles about
>> the square peg of fork() into the round whole of Windows?
>
> cygwin64 may do that... downgrading your OS will not.
>
> Ryan
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>

--
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

- Raw text -