X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org From: "Dave Korn" To: References: <001901c89348$cd86c8b0$06bca8c0 AT bigtower> <47F19881 DOT 2080508 AT byu DOT net> <00b001c89400$e59d20d0$2708a8c0 AT CAM DOT ARTIMI DOT COM> <004a01c89428$ea981fe0$2708a8c0 AT CAM DOT ARTIMI DOT COM> Subject: RE: postinstall hang Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 10:48:18 +0100 Message-ID: <0a7501c894a6$ae4e2ce0$2708a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Popper, Samuel (US SSA) wrote on 01 April 2008 21:13: > The output of cygcheck and sc.exe are both attached to this message. > Nothing there looked out of the ordinary to me, but I'm sure that you > have a better idea of what to look for. Only a couple of things that could conceivably be relevant: SERVICE_NAME: ACCESNT SERVICE_NAME: NTioPCI SERVICE_NAME: MAC_IBM SERVICE_NAME: MAC_MOT These are drivers for small embedded hardware devices. The first two go with some kind of analog/digital io card, the second two are I think some kind of macraigor bdm/ice box. These kinds of small niche market products often have drivers that are less well tested than others, and it's not beyond imagination that they could be buggy. This is my prime suspect, though. SERVICE_NAME: Sentinel DISPLAY_NAME: Sentinel TYPE : 1 KERNEL_DRIVER STATE : 4 RUNNING (STOPPABLE, NOT_PAUSABLE, IGNORES_SHUTDOWN)) WIN32_EXIT_CODE : 0 (0x0) SERVICE_EXIT_CODE : 0 (0x0) CHECKPOINT : 0x0 WAIT_HINT : 0x0 PID : 0 FLAGS : SERVICE_NAME: SNTNLUSB DISPLAY_NAME: Rainbow USB SuperPro TYPE : 1 KERNEL_DRIVER STATE : 4 RUNNING (STOPPABLE, NOT_PAUSABLE, IGNORES_SHUTDOWN)) WIN32_EXIT_CODE : 0 (0x0) SERVICE_EXIT_CODE : 0 (0x0) CHECKPOINT : 0x0 WAIT_HINT : 0x0 PID : 0 FLAGS : Security/rights management/license control thingy of some sort. It could easily have been coded under the mistaken assumption that hooking process creation is a reasonable means of tamper-proofing your software. Is it practical to try uninstalling and seeing if that's the cause? > In case it's relevant, from having previously spent time staring at > strace output, it appears that the problem is that the parent process is > not detecting the subprocess died, rather than having the > fork() itself fail. Pretty common for it to happen that way round. I don't think we can infer a great deal from that directly, but I could have overlooked something. cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today.... -- 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/