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:from:to:subject:date:message-id:references
	:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding
	:mime-version; q=dns; s=default; b=vqsoCjmpNMCotp01Dfp4BwW7TE3EL
	NA9M1OlLcs44I7DVWFQt83ECD4CpKqSRvqnGPsYEQnY5QCXIeF94bwb7kArXaUh3
	IoRciwYkO6Qi0aUODJVoA93TPh4TCiH0s+ZbFJ+8eYUVzoExXQeKYNXKZMnaNaDk
	upVsys7/ACEokQ=
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:from:to:subject:date:message-id:references
	:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding
	:mime-version; s=default; bh=0WiTv5z5Zg796hBRYcWO10d4zDM=; b=pz2
	G+dvLOUqi5hDPfOKAfwp9MNVtM7gGycczsYbPNXnAarmkxr++YUuwKL6S12QpiIG
	NROrdRk9wvW0xU9CPhOq1TZYU3/SX4O/ZX6rLbkVPHHM7BnCQFiwKYhDBU1wFBF3
	dyXKoYwVCSSNm6iJvRsqj62FkfOy3NKBXS0HPvxg=
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=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,CYGWIN_OWNER_BODY,KAM_ASCII_DIVIDERS,MIME_BASE64_BLANKS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=Conditions, UD:o.o, poland, key_t
X-HELO:	emea01-db3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com
From:	=?utf-8?B?U3RhbmlzxYJhdyBXYXdzemN6YWs=?= <stanislaw DOT wawszczak AT iscg DOT pl>
To:	"cygwin AT cygwin DOT com" <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	RE: Cygwin IPC - ftok() returns negative values - Bug Report
Date:	Wed, 29 Jun 2016 16:06:30 +0000
Message-ID:	<DB3PR05MB3481DD1143D413B28B2EF1BEB230@DB3PR05MB348.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References:	<AM3PR05MB3399758BC225C8E63BACF0FEB230 AT AM3PR05MB339 DOT eurprd05 DOT prod DOT outlook DOT com> <20160629151446 DOT GO981 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
In-Reply-To:	<20160629151446.GO981@calimero.vinschen.de>
authentication-results:	spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=stanislaw DOT wawszczak AT iscg DOT pl;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id:	adb9679b-88e3-4832-c44b-08d3a0375548
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics:	1;DB3PR05MB348;6:xi5I9w6LLfx9UL7iI1VjNCsEbvl4vT3cSFK/cJm+awMexDueD3qu3q9feLmqq4VqPKzXxZjDwxk6HdVFoUqg1l3bCM0dfL/WG9VaxuGVACF86LnV0bMFqQvMryb/Bq1DFOwrfGccfvxFo7BaA4pJ4pEFMXXXXeGml/NJ/qOox2TJdk+Rm2TkTO0Hb639oZyzG8s8ro5ezskgB6XFFXPdgEASJBY0qHDz6WvHAdu2O6/HzTKNisfQpXqn0wQaanP83oEHNbuoA/uffy1BTBzh6ow6OiVOrVM20ou7RKWzieOml3VplJMq1qdlr/S8jnkP;5:sDFVxarX3i1E2LR1wyqNjw8yvW4O+yf5Cf9Gu0xizLFtf2saJb28+/3bnwPx5vpmoFCiiTBWxcSnboSr/OcUxX7HSO8jztiRQiwfqiAFcPiyBSBeThg+sMqI8mBJblJVluWqfq6H1wBwXZJsXZejNA==;24:u6yA6vneHg6uwUhk+OETHExgNPL84kpwizumIvotYa4RAkc55g51W0DHB2JrGoYhNm26qnnyQZ++jIKrzTWr0g3xijVEGZRwtk2AS5VomlM=;7:d20MxFJxRnC1/ARxBTrf81CCmqGDjn8bTcsqFre4cq5DLVSdqavnvBnpoCLeqcYX/WA1bYdMIu1rfDkAPIlmBVFOeMILRcVhpJaxbeCa/LU4+T0QEAdC2B4gmcciolFxnCsaBIJKYtxgQDt+8EKb8idjbFgvKyCYuL/L+CIMn32PrZisdbOGna5DyPBtElnVuK8ewWIET/fN7yuHd71Qf0lfudjtO0YKKKE44ngEQkeQptx7VkVv3LukSiTQUbMS
x-microsoft-antispam:	UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DB3PR05MB348;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs:	<DB3PR05MB348589D3EF258D7A121CA56EB230 AT DB3PR05MB348 DOT eurprd05 DOT prod DOT outlook DOT com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test:	UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test:	BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(6040130)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(10201501046)(6041072)(6043046);SRVR:DB3PR05MB348;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DB3PR05MB348;
x-forefront-prvs:	09888BC01D
x-forefront-antispam-report:	SFV:NSPM;SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(7916002)(189002)(377454003)(199003)(13464003)(24454002)(86362001)(575784001)(110136002)(7846002)(8936002)(7736002)(89622001)(74316001)(81166006)(7696003)(189998001)(5003600100003)(305945005)(2906002)(107886002)(3660700001)(77096005)(8676002)(122556002)(19580405001)(3280700002)(5640700001)(5890100001)(92566002)(11100500001)(66066001)(2950100001)(1730700003)(81156014)(2900100001)(2501003)(9686002)(97736004)(74482002)(450100001)(105586002)(101416001)(85202003)(106356001)(50986999)(586003)(76176999)(3846002)(102836003)(6116002)(5002640100001)(19580395003)(54356999)(87936001)(10400500002)(85182001)(33656002)(76576001)(68736007)(2351001)(2004002)(460985005)(2480315003);DIR:OUT;SFP:1102;SCL:1;SRVR:DB3PR05MB348;H:DB3PR05MB348.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com;FPR:;SPF:None;PTR:InfoNoRecords;MX:1;A:1;LANG:en;
received-spf:	None (protection.outlook.com: iscg.pl does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput:	1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata:	NSPM
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-OriginatorOrg:	iscg.pl
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime:	29 Jun 2016 16:06:30.1827 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader:	Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id:	5d91e211-393e-4cc2-bc59-c077247cadc0
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped:	DB3PR05MB348
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from base64 to 8bit by delorie.com id u5TG6vcl005938

Dear Corinna,

I am sorry about confusing you.
Simply:

----------------------------- Issue ------------------------------------
Call to ftok() returns negative value

----------------------------- Conditions -----------------------------
Windows 2012 R2 with latest patches
Cygwin x64 installed from exe installer got two weeks ago
$ cygcheck -V
cygcheck (cygwin) 2.5.2
System Checker for Cygwin
Copyright (C) 1998 - 2016 Cygwin Authors
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.  There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

----------------------------- Test case -------------------------------
#include <sys/ipc.h>
#include <stdio.h>

int main(int argc, char**argv)
{
	key_t semHandle = ftok("/etc/fstab", 'A');
	printf("started\n");
	if(semHandle <= 0)
	{
		printf("semHandle <= 0 ; (semHandle = %lld)\n", semHandle);
	}
	else
	{
		printf("semHandle > 0 ; (semHandle = %lld)\n", semHandle);
	}
	printf("finished\n");
	return 0;
}

--------------------------- Result -----------------------------------
$ ./test.exe
started
semHandle <= 0 ; (semHandle = -5833568887996598975)
finished



Pozdrawiam/Best Regards,

Stanisław Wawszczak
Architekt Systemowy

ISCG Sp. z o.o.
Poland


-----Original Message-----
From: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com [mailto:cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com] On Behalf Of Corinna Vinschen
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 5:15 PM
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Cygwin IPC - ftok() returns negative values - Bug Report

On Jun 29 13:14, Stanisław Wawszczak wrote:
> Dear All,
>  
> I have had to compile sblim-sfcbd-1.4.10 on Cygwin. It is using IPC semaphores.
> Unfortunately it is returning wrong value as the result of complicated bit-wise logical operations.
> I have tried to “hack the system” and make multiplication of returned 
> value by -1, but it triggers error in semget()
> Environment:
> Windows 2012 R2 with latest patches
> I have installed Cygwin from official installer couple days ago.
>  
> I have attached the gdb session from such invocation. You can see the path and id in arguments are correct and stat() function returns correct values.
> Finally result in %rax is negative:
> rax            0xaf0b000701cc1d53       -5833568862233420461

Ok,  but what's the exact problem?  Following a GDB session is kind of a lot of work.  Simple, very short, self-contained testcase, perhaps?


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

- Raw text -