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:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to :references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; q=dns; s= default; b=tfdefqBZC+fKrZEy1h2wBEg8xUio09vSTQE5fNuEvky/RpKx56j9Z cFlogT4A7j4dLfUNsBLCViDfiUw/L1gD7hgpRx0kCZ/O13V66cdxvh7cZxiwOfSi iO9QSqyuaI9cRs32qTbdCS9WsJd1SQz/4fHKSIUrVFI2xkx32xwfTc= 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:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to :references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=default; bh=sS/MVT8h6Esm1ynsQx4ad52rd6A=; b=D2bSwxXgnBBIBVayKnzdRpJ3Mt83 wdAy+5VFEi+aHxu9Tcf8mYoXDySk1MgkzoA1b4dUDYbU9iOa0Mzgze9n1fUQEVnt a6cltkWcSrC1zWe8/IuSGuuGQHG+qVbhWyK9Uc2nvJvAit6bLohD6tenlF7GTs0B b1/7FIAqzxP+tCk= 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: No, score=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org X-Mail-Handler: Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse AT dyndns DOT com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX18slpBifs86I3cHlA1oRXZo Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 13:22:05 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: SIGKILL and TerminateProcess Message-ID: <20131029172205.GA1433@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <5F8AAC04F9616747BC4CC0E803D5907D0C40AFEB AT MLBXv04 DOT nih DOT gov> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5F8AAC04F9616747BC4CC0E803D5907D0C40AFEB@MLBXv04.nih.gov> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 03:47:47PM +0000, Lavrentiev, Anton (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C] wrote: >Hello List, > >I have a question, as to why CYGWIN does not use the TerminateProcess approach when >dealing with SIGKILL sent to a process (in the manner the CYGWIN's own kill utility >does when invoked with -f)? Usually SIGKILL is expected to reliably terminate >its victim (let alone it can't be intercepted, hence, does not need any "handling" >provisions). Yet under CYGWIN, if the point of execution is found as "unsafe" in the >target process, the signal cannot be delivered quickly. Such as when the process is busy dealing with a time-consuming Windows API (the dumbest example is Sleep() ;-), >then the process will not get killed even with SIGKILL. Could CYGWIN please consider >special-casing SIGKILL to perform something similar to the force-killing of the >command-line utility? Sorry but we aren't going to redesign the signal delivery mechanism for your use case. Cygwin does not guarantee delivery of signals to processes which are calling Windows API functions directly. If you do that you should be prepared to deal with problems. If you are finding that SIGKILL does not reliably kill a blocking UNIX function, however, that is a bug. -- 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