DMARC-Filter:	OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 delorie.com 5335oOLc3218425
Authentication-Results:	delorie.com; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=cygwin.com
Authentication-Results:	delorie.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cygwin.com
DKIM-Filter:	OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 delorie.com 5335oOLc3218425
Authentication-Results:	delorie.com;
	dkim=pass (1024-bit key, unprotected) header.d=cygwin.com header.i=@cygwin.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=hE4lrWk8
X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DKIM-Filter:	OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 70F47384C003
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cygwin.com;
	s=default; t=1743659422;
	bh=dSx6MEvWc6AaB54LCneMoC0zQgW0dEaUT9DXGn3d1H8=;
	h=Date:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:
	List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:
	From;
	b=hE4lrWk8aKh4/toZguGzK0Qv1nTrUfSbvXVavexp68TjN8AAFw+hFsTscsN4cgDPP
	+yyPCbMbRx1zOql9lX4E+q1ovx02FUj7WeQH+/RNV2HySMxHyejuH9xTvdRjw0xv3p
	PhvXQgOVjDXi7yg6mXgb4y/QQ6zPTmpuI57FOIco=
X-Original-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
DMARC-Filter:	OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org ABCB9385AC21
ARC-Filter:	OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org ABCB9385AC21
ARC-Seal:	i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1743659397; cv=none;
	b=pPf3ywPmnld7CTXG6U4sPGpPQxL6xAq4yHFOTQEPc4bK9DzJbAzLvaOxk3rX+7RHfNBYtDhsKj7esu2ofYoTNwaAzF6NNX07Iske+j8b3CcmBSGl53DbkX86dABYZO/raQm/FQ8oiUodfcpp5pyVq8uLRyVvjSi42hsh0O6f4G0=
ARC-Message-Signature:	i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key;
	t=1743659397; c=relaxed/simple;
	bh=jLLzqAcIFeDLC+eJ1F1e9EoXEQTF30uoSUHTmC67xlk=;
	h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-Id:Mime-Version:DKIM-Signature;
	b=joyEeOXPtDufETbjyud4wJE47HIg8jGA8JafYYXaCNZNYLe059Vsyy3lNMYbP0ZeJQpwL9Brw1y8wHfffoSLzOKRNiUy66KSuA/wlyVGO6zKZjk8m24mQ2bOrj4f9Zvf/iMqLY00dgkZKju8MKg0a85w0gB+2pecRMFQHRLRVRI=
ARC-Authentication-Results:	i=1; server2.sourceware.org
DKIM-Filter:	OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org ABCB9385AC21
Date:	Thu, 3 Apr 2025 14:49:52 +0900
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Crashes in cmake subprocesses since 3.6.0
Message-Id:	<20250403144952.ba310b7c6bb82858c489117d@nifty.ne.jp>
In-Reply-To:	<20250403123235.027e508e729188197a96ad2d@nifty.ne.jp>
References:	<CAE6_+UfTZc0UTb29p=WVXsP7p7sMmOfmd6SOLR8SCPScJEXHRA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<7eaea471-d453-efc7-19cc-58e0ee187af0 AT jdrake DOT com>
	<Z-pgTDoHXm9ip53T AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
	<20250402220125 DOT 5d2e1d28cfa37ad934a94ed9 AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>
	<20250403015216 DOT 3a3d48efb51820b23856225c AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>
	<Z-1-2raM0AN8aSqD AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
	<20250403123235 DOT 027e508e729188197a96ad2d AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>
X-Mailer:	Sylpheed 3.7.0 (GTK+ 2.24.30; i686-pc-mingw32)
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-BeenThere:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Mailman-Version:	2.1.30
List-Id:	General Cygwin discussions and problem reports <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe:	<https://cygwin.com/mailman/options/cygwin>,
	<mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive:	<https://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe:	<https://cygwin.com/mailman/listinfo/cygwin>,
	<mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=subscribe>
From:	Takashi Yano via Cygwin <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Reply-To:	Takashi Yano <takashi DOT yano AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>
Errors-To:	cygwin-bounces~archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com
Sender:	"Cygwin" <cygwin-bounces~archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>

On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 12:32:35 +0900
Takashi Yano wrote:
> > Still, I wonder in which thread raw_write is running during fork().
> 
> Weird enough, raw_write() is called in the main thread (_main_tls).
> Any chance, fixup_after_fork() is not called?

It seems that raw_write() is called before returning from
pthread::atforkchild() in fork::child().

Moving _my_tls.fixup_after_fork() before atforkchild() seems
to solve the issue.

What about:
ld_preload ();
fixup_hooks_after_fork ();
ch.rd_proc_pipe = ch.wr_proc_pipe = NULL;
?

Should any of these be before pthread::atforkchild() asl well?

I'm now performing a long-run test with the patch:

diff --git a/winsup/cygwin/fork.cc b/winsup/cygwin/fork.cc
index 0742ab363..28daf2682 100644
--- a/winsup/cygwin/fork.cc
+++ b/winsup/cygwin/fork.cc
@@ -187,7 +187,6 @@ frok::child (volatile char * volatile here)
 
   ForceCloseHandle1 (fork_info->forker_finished, forker_finished);
 
-  pthread::atforkchild ();
   cygbench ("fork-child");
   ld_preload ();
   fixup_hooks_after_fork ();
@@ -196,6 +195,7 @@ frok::child (volatile char * volatile here)
      rd_proc_pipe that would be an invalid handle.  In the case of
      wr_proc_pipe it would be == my_wr_proc_pipe.  Both would be bad. */
   ch.rd_proc_pipe = ch.wr_proc_pipe = NULL;
+  pthread::atforkchild ();
   CloseHandle (hParent);
   hParent = NULL;
   cygwin_finished_initializing = true;

-- 
Takashi Yano <takashi DOT yano AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>

-- 
Problem reports:      https://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                  https://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:        https://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:     https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -