Mail Archives: cygwin-developers/2001/03/12/13:24:34
Hi!
Monday, 12 March, 2001 Christopher Faylor cgf AT redhat DOT com wrote:
CF> On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 06:49:47PM +0300, Egor Duda wrote:
>>Monday, 12 March, 2001 Christopher Faylor cgf AT redhat DOT com wrote:
>>>>From the errors, it *looks* like these are problems in some of Egor Duda's recent
>>CF> additions. I'd prefer to let him look into this, if possible.
>>
>>i've finally make xemacs work on my machine and reproduced these
>>errors. i hope that now fixing them is only matter of time. i'll
>>submit the patch ASAP.
CF> Is it possible that this is a problem with F_SETFD inheritance? I seem
CF> to recall that I had problems with this when modifying tty stuff in
CF> the past.
it looks like we don't set need_fixup_after_fork for
fhandler_tty_slave. is it intentional?
afaics, this leads to the situation when process with open slave tty
forks, forkee doesn't call fhandler_tty_common::fixup_after_fork, as
it thinks it doesn't need to, so all handles are left invalid. if then
forkee close this inherited fd of slave tty, there is a chance that
some valid handle is occasionally equal to the, say, non-fixed-up
'input_available_event' handle, and nevertheless, we call
ForceCloseHandle(input_available_event).
if i understand things right, it will be sufficient to call
set_need_fork_fixup() in fhandler_tty_slave constructor. or even in
fhandler_tty_common constructor?
Egor. mailto:deo AT logos-m DOT ru ICQ 5165414 FidoNet 2:5020/496.19
- Raw text -