This is the mail archive of the cygwin mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: services not starting with 20060104 snapshot


On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 09:38:09AM -0500, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> >On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > >> Also, what version of XP are you running?  Pro?  Is it up-to-date
> >> > > >> with all service packs and updates?
> >> > > >
> >> > > >I'm running XP Pro SP1, with most updates applied (except KB835409
> >> > > >and KB910437, which are pending).
> >> > >
> >> > > Maybe that is a clue, as Yitzchak suggested.  I'd missed that in the
> >> > > cygcheck output.  I'm running SP2 and I believe Corinna is also.
> >> >
> >> > It does look like a problem with SP1 (and Karl's message supports this
> >> > as well).  Unfortunately, I'm not at liberty to install SP2 on this
> >> > machine (due to licensing restrictions).  So I'll have to dig until a
> >> > solution is found.
> >> >
> >> > Interestingly enough, the ssh daemon works just fine with the 20051003
> >> > snapshot.  I'll try to track all the changes to fhandler_console
> >> > between then and now to see which one tickled this problem.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for helping me get to the bottom of this.
> >>
> >> Ok, I've tracked it down to these two changes:
> >> <http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-cvs/2005-q4/msg00162.html> and
> >> <http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-cvs/2005-q4/msg00166.html>.  Commenting out
> >> the if test in the beginning of set_console_state_for_spawn() allows the
> >> sshd server to start successfully *and* show the output of a command.
> >>
> >> Is real_path.iscygexec() the right test for noncygwin_process?  It looks
> >> reversed...
> >
> >And indeed it was.  Negating that test brought back the output of commands
> >invoked via ssh.  I'll submit a patch to cygwin-patches in a bit.  Whew!
>
> You're asking if !iscygexec is the right way to detect a
> "noncygwin_process".
> Yes.

No, I was actually asking whether iscygexec() was the right way to detect
a "noncygwin_process", since that's exactly the test used in spawn_guts.
You just confirmed that it isn't (and that its inverse, !iscygexec(), is).

The parameter to set_console_state_for_spawn is currently computed in
spawn_guts as "real_path.iscygexec()", which, IIUC, will be true for
Cygwin processes and false for non-Cygwin processes (the corresponding
ChangeLog entry seems to imply that the meaning of the argument was
unintentionally reversed).
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_	    pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu | igor@watson.ibm.com
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!)
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		old name: Igor Pechtchanski
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"Las! je suis sot... -Mais non, tu ne l'es pas, puisque tu t'en rends compte."
"But no -- you are no fool; you call yourself a fool, there's proof enough in
that!" -- Rostand, "Cyrano de Bergerac"


--
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/


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]