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:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to
	:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; q=dns; s=
	default; b=tfdefqBZC+fKrZEy1h2wBEg8xUio09vSTQE5fNuEvky/RpKx56j9Z
	cFlogT4A7j4dLfUNsBLCViDfiUw/L1gD7hgpRx0kCZ/O13V66cdxvh7cZxiwOfSi
	iO9QSqyuaI9cRs32qTbdCS9WsJd1SQz/4fHKSIUrVFI2xkx32xwfTc=
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:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to
	:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=default;
	bh=sS/MVT8h6Esm1ynsQx4ad52rd6A=; b=D2bSwxXgnBBIBVayKnzdRpJ3Mt83
	wdAy+5VFEi+aHxu9Tcf8mYoXDySk1MgkzoA1b4dUDYbU9iOa0Mzgze9n1fUQEVnt
	a6cltkWcSrC1zWe8/IuSGuuGQHG+qVbhWyK9Uc2nvJvAit6bLohD6tenlF7GTs0B
	b1/7FIAqzxP+tCk=
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
Authentication-Results:	sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found:	No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status:	No, score=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO:	mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org
X-Mail-Handler:	Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn
X-Report-Abuse-To:	abuse AT dyndns DOT com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information)
X-MHO-User:	U2FsdGVkX18slpBifs86I3cHlA1oRXZo
Date:	Tue, 29 Oct 2013 13:22:05 -0400
From:	Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: SIGKILL and TerminateProcess
Message-ID:	<20131029172205.GA1433@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<5F8AAC04F9616747BC4CC0E803D5907D0C40AFEB AT MLBXv04 DOT nih DOT gov>
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<5F8AAC04F9616747BC4CC0E803D5907D0C40AFEB@MLBXv04.nih.gov>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 03:47:47PM +0000, Lavrentiev, Anton (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C] wrote:
>Hello List,
>
>I have a question, as to why CYGWIN does not use the TerminateProcess approach when
>dealing with SIGKILL sent to a process (in the manner the CYGWIN's own kill utility
>does when invoked with -f)?  Usually SIGKILL is expected to reliably terminate
>its victim (let alone it can't be intercepted, hence, does not need any "handling"
>provisions).  Yet under CYGWIN, if the point of execution is found as "unsafe" in the
>target process, the signal cannot be delivered quickly.  Such as when the process is busy dealing with a time-consuming Windows API (the dumbest example is Sleep() ;-),
>then the process will not get killed even with SIGKILL.  Could CYGWIN please consider
>special-casing SIGKILL to perform something similar to the force-killing of the
>command-line utility?

Sorry but we aren't going to redesign the signal delivery mechanism for
your use case.

Cygwin does not guarantee delivery of signals to processes which are
calling Windows API functions directly.  If you do that you should be
prepared to deal with problems.

If you are finding that SIGKILL does not reliably kill a blocking UNIX
function, however, that is a bug.

--
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 -