This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: ASLR breaks cygwin
- From: "Larry Hall (Cygwin)" <reply-to-list-only-lh at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 15:43:08 -0400
- Subject: Re: ASLR breaks cygwin
- References: <51B0B1F2 dot 4090402 at gmail dot com> <75109671 dot 20130606204049 at mtu-net dot ru> <CAPF-yOYFoZ6sjJgFEEg2hZ5zJSE4eP9mE3-+_NSifxgnyii8tQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <51B0C178 dot 1050605 at etr-usa dot com> <20130606172711 dot GE13320 at calimero dot vinschen dot de>
- Reply-to: cygwin at cygwin dot com
On 6/6/2013 1:27 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Jun 6 11:06, Warren Young wrote:
On 6/6/2013 10:52, Dan Kegel wrote:
I wonder if we could get them to recognize the parent-child
relationship somehow, and keep the same address space
in the child.
Just kidding. Hell would sooner freeze over.
I don't know about that. For a long time, they had a bigger
conflict of interest with Cygwin due to SFU/SUA/Interix and the
POSIX subsystem. They announced SUA's doom a couple of years ago
and the need for a separate native POSIX API is gone. I even
recall reading on this list that Microsoft now recommends Cygwin, at
Perhaps Microsoft now has some incentive to create a native fork(2)
like call in their OS that Cygwin could use. (Or something close
enough, like Linux's clone(2).)
The problem is not the call. Such a call exists, since Vista even
one with very simple usage. The problem is that this call has
been created for SUA, and some Win32 libs as well as the console
subsystem don't work with this call because there never have been
made provisions for a fork call in the Win32 libs. Chances for
a change are rather low.
So I should put away my ice-skates and pitchforks? Wait, was that
a pun? ;-)
> Q: Are you sure?
>> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple