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:message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject
	:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	 q=dns; s=default; b=YO96RFswnohdtELg3bAdkJR5CgYxfd+FLo+L+nuXNT8
	CeF3Vv2ezwgRBHYhE+kZ+s0QYabdUMZOQv8ciAKYsMPBnLE1jlV1a66BDcToU+qZ
	kNwgbb2PAjSALOmtN8OkwHqIC2o+ovU/zQ8RgzUViq+G0cA7aM5kerenKA4h0ajM
	=
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:message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject
	:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	 s=default; bh=E9xZhQpm3MTjOeZWSFBnrZS4U7U=; b=g4M5PBGVApVg8bTYZ
	P5zqWl/3KmzMsqQAgZ2sJw6cZdvvudQVdlrIxUqvMc2UIQTinKC48XnyrETaNCfl
	3FmH5G9y19XPIuYfK3SsNOVQpnw6MwWCITIgHpxb/nG4IZ5XlngCxRDo41+2Q2w7
	Sz7OXZR3cADynC0heyKWllnOAM=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.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
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO: limerock04.mail.cornell.edu
X-CornellRouted: This message has been Routed already.
Message-ID: <559449AF.9010804@cornell.edu>
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 16:12:31 -0400
From: Ken Brown <kbrown AT cornell DOT edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] TEST RELEASE: Cygwin 2.1.0-0.1
References: <20150626141437 DOT GV31223 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <558D62D7 DOT 8010709 AT cornell DOT edu> <20150626153647 DOT GX31223 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <558D8409 DOT 2000400 AT cornell DOT edu> <20150626200512 DOT GA30636 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <558DD1F3 DOT 4010301 AT cornell DOT edu> <20150627145259 DOT GB23036 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20150630195547 DOT GG2918 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <5592F86E DOT 8070803 AT cornell DOT edu> <20150701104748 DOT GH2918 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20150701135749 DOT GN2918 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
In-Reply-To: <20150701135749.GN2918@calimero.vinschen.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes

On 7/1/2015 9:57 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jul  1 12:47, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Jun 30 16:13, Ken Brown wrote:
>>> On 6/30/2015 3:55 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>>> On Jun 27 16:52, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 26 18:28, Ken Brown wrote:
>>>>>> On the other hand, emacs doesn't really make a full recovery.  For example,
>>>>>> if I try to call a subprocess (e.g., 'C-x d' to list a directory), I get a
>>>>>> fork error:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Debugger entered--Lisp error: (file-error "Doing vfork" "Resource
>>>>>> temporarily unavailable")
>>>>> [...]
>>>> Just FYI, I don't know yet what happens exactly, but this has nothing
>>>> to do with the alternate stack.  The child process fails with a status
>>>> code 0xC00000FD, STATUS_STACK_OVERFLOW.  Which is kind of weird, given
>>>> that the stack overflow has been averted by calling siglongjmp.
>>>>
>>>> I have a hunch.  The stack state in the parent is so that TEB::StackLimit
>>>> points into the topmost guard area which, when poked into, triggers the
>>>> stack overflow exception.  When forking, Cygwin performs exactly this:
>>>> It pokes into the stack to push the guard page out of the way, thus
>>>> causing the stack memory to be commited, which in turn allows to copy
>>>> the stack content from parent to child.
>>>>
>>>> Ok, I'm not sure if I can debug this soon, but at leats it's not
>>>> related to sigaltstack handling nor is it a regression.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the info, that's good to know.  Just out of curiosity, were you
>>> able to modify your testcase for this, or did you test with emacs?
>>
>> I just added a fork call to my testcase right after the last printf.
>
> My hunch was correct, apparently.  I changed the way the stack info
> is set up for the child so only the actually used part of the stack is
> prepared for the stack copy in the child.  This not only avoids the
> stack overflow in the child, it should shave a few nanoseconds from
> the time a fork takes ;)
>
> I uploaded new developer snapshots to https://cygwin.com/snapshots/ and
> I'm just building and uploading a new test release.
>
> Please give it another try.

That fixes it.  Thanks!

Ken


--
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