X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org BE17F3857705 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cygwin.com; s=default; t=1682005289; bh=xh6jGzvtcI279EGwzzDKv7RUUkPQRaGGPZHKanomXqg=; h=Date:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=JkU/x8PYsVYx8pBDme+Ju2C+qsLNzhWfQi+SgWz/Uwy3zpfjXEpbMGtZVCoQtLOfL u1cVpQUsjlJFoPcP35M2FdLY1hl/Pa2nKI2UzXNmpsE8wAgSVTb+hmgxHEqSOdI0im IYJoYvMNZc9Uiyj3Ozk8MgOTPgM2BjBtHuZ1BFIY= X-Original-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 85ECB3858C83 Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 17:40:52 +0200 To: Bruno Haible Subject: Re: posix_spawn facility Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: Bruno Haible , cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <1752276 DOT 7aRn1RRit1 AT nimes> <4892432 DOT 0VBMTVartN AT nimes> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4892432.0VBMTVartN@nimes> X-BeenThere: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: General Cygwin discussions and problem reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Cc: Corinna Vinschen , cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Errors-To: cygwin-bounces+archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com Sender: "Cygwin" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by delorie.com id 33KFfrmm001219 On Apr 20 16:58, Bruno Haible via Cygwin wrote: > Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > Hmm. Your code uses lpReserved2 for that, but the functionality is > > > one implemented in MSVCRT. For obvious reasons, Cygwin executables > > > are not linked against msvcrt.dll and we're using lpReserved2 for our > > > own purposes. > > > > Oh, btw., did you know that there's a newer mechanism for defining > > specific inheritable handles to CreateProcess, which is implemented > > in kernel32.dll, so it does not depend on MSVCRT? > > > > There's a STARTUPINFOEX structure which allows to specify the > > additional handles. See > > > > https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/winbase/ns-winbase-startupinfoexa > > > > and the PROC_THREAD_ATTRIBUTE_HANDLE_LIST argument described in > > > > https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/processthreadsapi/nf-processthreadsapi-updateprocthreadattribute > > Indeed, this appears to be a more "official" way to pass handles for fd ≥ 3, > instead of lpReserved2 — albeit without associated 'flags'. Not sure how > O_APPEND is handled then... Yeah, theoretically, that should be handled by CreateFile opening the file with FILE_APPEND_DATA attribute, and in the child MSVCRT should test with NtQueryInformationFile(FILE_ACCESS_INFORMATION) if the FILE_APPEND_DATA flag is set. But then again, if MSVCRT implements fcntl (F_SETFL) to allow manipulating the O_APPEND flag... unfortunately there's no such operation via Win32 or native calls. That would require to reopen the file with different access mask and replace the HANDLE under the hood of the descriptor. I'm not aware if and how MSVCRT performs this action. Corinna -- Problem reports: https://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: https://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: https://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple