X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:20:33 +0200
From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: cygwin bash crashes on Win Serv 2008
Message-ID: <20081023162033.GS9289@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <081020144229 DOT ZM1710 AT adobe DOT com> <20081023135451 DOT GB21067 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20081023140902 DOT GR9289 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <010e01c93525$ab77b160$9601a8c0 AT CAM DOT ARTIMI DOT COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <010e01c93525$ab77b160$9601a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09)
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
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

On Oct 23 16:40, Dave Korn wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote on 23 October 2008 15:09:
> > I seem to have missed the point here.  The point is, this `push %ebp'
> > instruction is the one crashing, producing a segmentation violation.
> 
>   What's the underlying windows exception (i.e. before cygwin translates that
> into SEGV)?  

STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION

> >>   This is, in theory, an entirely
> >> harmless operation.  The stack and register content before and after the
> >> crash are looking absolutely normal.  The push does neither operate on
> >> an invalid address nor on a page boundary, nor is it misaligned.  It's
> >> just a push to some arbitrary address within an existing stack page.
> 
>   Only thing I can think of is "Not if %ss has been mucked around with it
> isn't".

Yeah, I heard about that.  But what is %ss doing in Windows and why
should it be messed up with TS?!?  And why are only Cygwin processes
affected, and then only some?

>   I'd use windbg on this, take a look at the exception record and selectors
> and stuff.

The exception record was a good hint (I don't know what you mean by
"selectors", sorry).  Unfortunately it puzzles me even more:

    ExceptionAddress: 00419d97 (image00400000+0x00019d97)
       ExceptionCode: c0000005 (Access violation)
      ExceptionFlags: 00000000
    NumberParameters: 2
       Parameter[0]: 00000008
       Parameter[1]: 00419d97
    Attempt to execute non-executable address 00419d97

Huh?  Why should this address (this application function) be
"non-executable", while it's executable when TS is not installed?

Could this have something to do with the executbale header gcc creates?
If so, maybe mingw apps are affected as well...


Thanks,
Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

--
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/