Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 01:45:05 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@cygwin.com>
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: 1.7.10s 20110729 - problem listing services in /proc
Message-ID: <20110730054505.GA21632@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
References: <4E3302E5.6000602@acm.org> <20110729202142.GD13084@calimero.vinschen.de> <1311979011.3972.13.camel@YAAKOV04> <4E33372A.2010009@acm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4E33372A.2010009@acm.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com

On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 03:41:46PM -0700, David Rothenberger wrote:
>On 7/29/2011 3:36 PM, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
>> On Fri, 2011-07-29 at 22:21 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> On Jul 29 11:58, David Rothenberger wrote:
>>>> With the 20110729 snapshot (and some earlier ones), the following
>>>> command terminates early.
>>>>
>>>> % find /proc/registry/HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/SYSTEM/CurrentControlSet/services -maxdepth 1 -print
>>>>
>>>> strace lists an exception: "exception C0000005 at 6100296A". This is
>>>> occurring for me in both Win7 x64 and WinXP x86. It doesn't occur in
>>>> either environment using 1.7.9.
>>>
>>> I can't reproduce this.  Address 6100296A points to a double free on
>>> the cygheap, alternativly an overwritten memeory slot on the cygheap.
>>> Without being able to duplicate the problem it's rather hard to find.
>>> Can you try earlier snapshots to find out in what timeframe this 
>>> problem has been introduced?  An strace might be helpful as well.
>> 
>> I did have C0000005 exceptions with the 20110729 snapshot with seemingly
>> all fork() calls, which I don't have with 1.7.9.  I'm running Win7 SP1
>> x64 with large-address-aware executables and DLLs rebased above
>> 0x80000000.  I won't be able to diagnose this further until after the
>> weekend.
>
>For what it's worth, I was also running the 20110729 snapshot on Win7
>SP1 x64 with large-address-aware executables and DLLs rebased above
>0x80000000, and this was the only regular problem I was seeing.

I don't see this on either XP x86 or WIN 7 x86_64.

cgf

--
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