Subject: RE: call_handler, interrupt_now and interruptible
From: Heribert Dahms <[email-masked]>
To: "'Chris Faylor'" <[email-masked]>, "Fifer, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "'Ray Easton'" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 22:45:14 +0100

Hi Chris,

I guess this breaks now my code, which basically
does a select() until a socket becomes readable,
starts a loop preparing a timeout with alarm(60)
for the following blocking fgets(), which is normally
reset using alarm(0) after each line, but is supposed
to be interrupted in case of a bad behaving client?

Bye, Heribert ([email-masked])

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Chris Faylor [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent:	Friday, February 04, 2000 00:26
> To:	Fifer, Eric
> Cc:	'Ray Easton'; [email-masked]
> Subject:	Re: call_handler, interrupt_now and interruptible
> 
> On Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 06:38:43PM -0000, Fifer, Eric wrote:
> >
> >"Ray Easton" writes:
> >>> Anyways, is this dangerous to do?
> >>
> >>If 'this' means interrupting a DLL while it is "paused on a system
> >>call", yes, it is extermely dangerous and can leave the NT kernel in
> a
> >>corrupt state.  (This has nothing to do with Cygwin -- this is
> purely
> >>an NT issue.)
> 
> [Heribert]  [snip]
> 
> The answer to your question is that this *is* dangerous to do.  It
> allows
> cygwin "system calls" to be interrupted.
> 

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to [email-masked]