X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 11:31:13 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: services not starting with 20060104 snapshot
Message-ID: <20060105163113.GF32362@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20060105035924 DOT GA29865 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 63 DOT 0601042311530 DOT 1754 AT slinky DOT cs DOT nyu DOT edu> <20060105042927 DOT GA30538 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 63 DOT 0601050008330 DOT 1754 AT slinky DOT cs DOT nyu DOT edu> <20060105060545 DOT GA31370 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 63 DOT 0601050904340 DOT 1754 AT slinky DOT cs DOT nyu DOT edu> <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 63 DOT 0601050924090 DOT 1754 AT slinky DOT cs DOT nyu DOT edu> <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 63 DOT 0601050935500 DOT 1754 AT slinky DOT cs DOT nyu DOT edu> <20060105150847 DOT GB31370 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 63 DOT 0601051020540 DOT 1754 AT slinky DOT cs DOT nyu DOT edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.63.0601051020540.1754@slinky.cs.nyu.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT 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
Note-from-DJ: This may be spam

On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 10:28:23AM -0500, Igor Peshansky wrote:
>On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 09:38:09AM -0500, Igor Peshansky wrote:
>> >On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Igor Peshansky wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Igor Peshansky wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > >> Also, what version of XP are you running?  Pro?  Is it up-to-date
>> >> > > >> with all service packs and updates?
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >I'm running XP Pro SP1, with most updates applied (except KB835409
>> >> > > >and KB910437, which are pending).
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Maybe that is a clue, as Yitzchak suggested.  I'd missed that in the
>> >> > > cygcheck output.  I'm running SP2 and I believe Corinna is also.
>> >> >
>> >> > It does look like a problem with SP1 (and Karl's message supports this
>> >> > as well).  Unfortunately, I'm not at liberty to install SP2 on this
>> >> > machine (due to licensing restrictions).  So I'll have to dig until a
>> >> > solution is found.
>> >> >
>> >> > Interestingly enough, the ssh daemon works just fine with the 20051003
>> >> > snapshot.  I'll try to track all the changes to fhandler_console
>> >> > between then and now to see which one tickled this problem.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks for helping me get to the bottom of this.
>> >>
>> >> Ok, I've tracked it down to these two changes:
>> >> <http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-cvs/2005-q4/msg00162.html> and
>> >> <http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-cvs/2005-q4/msg00166.html>.  Commenting out
>> >> the if test in the beginning of set_console_state_for_spawn() allows the
>> >> sshd server to start successfully *and* show the output of a command.
>> >>
>> >> Is real_path.iscygexec() the right test for noncygwin_process?  It looks
>> >> reversed...
>> >
>> >And indeed it was.  Negating that test brought back the output of commands
>> >invoked via ssh.  I'll submit a patch to cygwin-patches in a bit.  Whew!
>>
>> You're asking if !iscygexec is the right way to detect a
>> "noncygwin_process".
>> Yes.
>
>No, I was actually asking whether iscygexec() was the right way to detect
>a "noncygwin_process", since that's exactly the test used in spawn_guts.
>You just confirmed that it isn't (and that its inverse, !iscygexec(), is).

In the future I'll try to limit my stupid remarks to one mailing list.

Your interpretation of the problem was correct (although there still may be
a lurking problem with non-cygwin processes) and my remarks about it should
be disregarded because I was confused.

(I've got a nice headache going on which explains the confusion but I
should be experienced enough by now to know not to trust my judgement
when I have to squint at the screen.)

Please give yourself a gold star for tracking this down, Igor.  Maybe now
I can sleep tonight.

cgf


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