X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:to:from:subject:date:message-id:references :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to; q=dns; s=default; b=NSzL6rOYgNVULupxNPW5N+9z3/C9Pj WQ7FksmVvzNUb0g3t4a14UrLj7XnBG5F9uI3x0oM6SlA06WJlD3/eN9D0R/XTCc+ 6jjhL45YeEzc8Te5koFhV2rf72gInrMf3YRg1CoZsoKLMxd0g2moCONhK7YZqavb oEjv3sXw7vJYs= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:to:from:subject:date:message-id:references :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to; s=default; bh=PxthifGZtMZNAYVEHfjQe+ovU8o=; b=K5nH HFNDSOsn6VpVG6p8cPrERrPQtrC3JNt1fEO3vpUIVd0ViQm2TCsqiwxiWm+JgOjo bFnxTphP8sETMKy7dVn6cefzf3se+n1LAi7X4gZsrwJWxBePW1pyV+ezgNQWB6R0 1hIsDnMS8rZv9ph29d3uFVE9UF0tsjhiodN9438= Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: 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 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: Yes, score=5.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,CK_HELO_GENERIC,RCVD_IN_PBL,RCVD_IN_SEMBLACK,RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL,RDNS_NONE,SPF_FAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: plane.gmane.org To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com From: Achim Gratz Subject: Re: fixing BLODA-caused fork failures Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 10:14:39 +0200 Lines: 27 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130911 Thunderbird/17.0.9 In-Reply-To: X-IsSubscribed: yes Am 03.10.2013 22:55, schrieb Adam Kellas: > My company uses Cygwin and we experience fairly frequent fork > failures, believed to be BLODA-related. I say "believed to be" because > in this corporate environment, like many, we cannot uninstall the > virus scanner even long enough to see what happens without it. In my experience the culprit is most often the "real-time" or "behavioral" component of the anti virus program. Uninstalling the virus program is a bad idea and it will certainly draw the ire of corporate IT, but you may persuade them to exclude the whole Cygwin installation tree from these two functions. In any case I'd try to get a test machine from IT and try if that helps. > So we need Cygwin and we're stuck with Forefront, putting us > between a rock and a hard place. AFAIK Forefront uses the same engine on the client as MSE. MSE has not been a problem w.r.t. Cygwin for me, so either the rules used by Forefront have been sharpened or the fork problems may not be related to it after all. Do you use other programs that are based on Cygwin, like NoMachine NX or other (perhaps in-house) programs that insist on putting their DLL at fixed address spaces? Regards, Achim. -- 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