Re: child (xterm) fork failure as it loads to different address
Il 7/29/2013 10:10 AM, Ariel Burbaickij ha scritto: Hello group, I have a fresh installation of cygwin/ (cygcheck returns following for cygwin1.dll: cygwin1.dll - os=4.0 img=1.0 sys=4.0 cygwin1.dll v0.0 ts=2013-07-22 16:06)/cygwin-X (1.14.2-1 built 2013-07-08) and following happens: upon attempt to execute startxwin.exe get following error, while startxwin attempt to execute xterm: xterm 5508 child_info_fork::abort: C:\nobackup\cygwin\bin\cygz.dll: Loaded to different address: parent(0x32) != child(0x3B) xterm: Error 29, errno 11: Resource temporarily unavailable Reason: spawn: fork() failed while it is clear what happens, what is not clear is how to resolve it, so that it does not happen anymore? http://cygwin.com/faq.html#faq.using.fixing-fork-failures /wbr Ariel Burbaickij -- otherwise, follow the guideline: Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html -- 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
Re: child (xterm) fork failure as it loads to different address
OK, thank, you, so usual suspects. Now, removing, antivirus and stuff will not be possible in this particular environment but adjustments in the configuration are well possible, provided I will be able to prove to administrators that troubles, indeed, stem from antivirus and co. Now, I see in the FAQ in 4.42 section that these troubles were traced and attributed to antiviri programs. Any more details about how they were traced exactly, so that I can re-trace them too and provide a proof, if needed? Now, this is for one thing. Another one, is the possibility to run Windows 7 (in my case) or any Windows OS, down to and including NT in POSIX-compatible mode. Is this step expected to solve or at least alleviate all or at least some the troubles about the square peg of fork() into the round whole of Windows? On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:35 PM, marco atzeri marco.atz...@gmail.com wrote: Il 7/29/2013 10:10 AM, Ariel Burbaickij ha scritto: Hello group, I have a fresh installation of cygwin/ (cygcheck returns following for cygwin1.dll: cygwin1.dll - os=4.0 img=1.0 sys=4.0 cygwin1.dll v0.0 ts=2013-07-22 16:06)/cygwin-X (1.14.2-1 built 2013-07-08) and following happens: upon attempt to execute startxwin.exe get following error, while startxwin attempt to execute xterm: xterm 5508 child_info_fork::abort: C:\nobackup\cygwin\bin\cygz.dll: Loaded to different address: parent(0x32) != child(0x3B) xterm: Error 29, errno 11: Resource temporarily unavailable Reason: spawn: fork() failed while it is clear what happens, what is not clear is how to resolve it, so that it does not happen anymore? http://cygwin.com/faq.html#faq.using.fixing-fork-failures /wbr Ariel Burbaickij -- otherwise, follow the guideline: Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html -- 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 -- 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
Re: child (xterm) fork failure as it loads to different address
On Jul 29 09:35, Ryan Johnson wrote: http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#TOFU On 29/07/2013 8:15 AM, Ariel Burbaickij wrote: OK, thank, you, so usual suspects. Now, removing, antivirus and stuff will not be possible in this particular environment but adjustments in the configuration are well possible, provided I will be able to prove to administrators that troubles, indeed, stem from antivirus and co. Now, I see in the FAQ in 4.42 section that these troubles were traced and attributed to antiviri programs. Any more details about how they were traced exactly, so that I can re-trace them too and provide a proof, if needed? The proof usually goes something like this: 1. People report fork() failures on the list, and a correlation is noted between those failures and presence of app/antivirus X. 2. It is confirmed (or at least considered highly probable) that X performs dll injection, the root cause of these sorts of fork() failures. 3. Somebody tries disabling/removing X and the fork() failures go away. 4. X gets added to BLODA and reports of fork() failures, not attributable to X, disappear from the list. Eventually the process repeats when Y appears. There's no Y. The successor of X is allegedly called Wayland. duck Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- 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
Re: child (xterm) fork failure as it loads to different address
http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#TOFU On 29/07/2013 8:15 AM, Ariel Burbaickij wrote: OK, thank, you, so usual suspects. Now, removing, antivirus and stuff will not be possible in this particular environment but adjustments in the configuration are well possible, provided I will be able to prove to administrators that troubles, indeed, stem from antivirus and co. Now, I see in the FAQ in 4.42 section that these troubles were traced and attributed to antiviri programs. Any more details about how they were traced exactly, so that I can re-trace them too and provide a proof, if needed? The proof usually goes something like this: 1. People report fork() failures on the list, and a correlation is noted between those failures and presence of app/antivirus X. 2. It is confirmed (or at least considered highly probable) that X performs dll injection, the root cause of these sorts of fork() failures. 3. Somebody tries disabling/removing X and the fork() failures go away. 4. X gets added to BLODA and reports of fork() failures, not attributable to X, disappear from the list. Eventually the process repeats when Y appears. You could also try enabling BLODA detection [1] and see what turns up, or run the NirSoft DLL injection detector [2]. [1] http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2012-02/msg00797.html [2] http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/injected_dll.html Now, this is for one thing. Another one, is the possibility to run Windows 7 (in my case) or any Windows OS, down to and including NT in POSIX-compatible mode. From www.cygwin.com: The Cygwin DLL currently works with all recent, commercially released x86 32 bit and 64 bit versions of Windows, starting with Windows XP SP3. So no, Windows NT will not work. Neither will Win95/98/2000. Nor will XP SP1/SP2. But if your admins are really so worried about viruses, they won't let you run those ancient operating systems anyway, because MS no longer pushes security patches for them. Given that you seem to have your choice of OS, though, you might try 64-bit cygwin. The sheer amount of address space that becomes available, plus some careful design decisions for placement of cygwin-related dlls in that space, reduces the risk of fork failures considerably. I don't think anybody has reported a fork failure on cygwin64 yet (knock on wood). I recently migrated to 64-bit cygwin with a new Win7/64 install myself, and so far have not had to disable Windows Defender; the latter was a recurring source of trouble for my previous 32-bit cygwin install on Win7/64. If you can't get cygwin64 running, you may be able to convince your admins to whitelist cygwin apps with the AV solution; that has a small chance of stopping the dll injection and allowing fork() to succeed. Don't get your hopes up, though: most AV leave the dll injection in place even when completely disabled system-wide, and just tell the dlls not to do anything (other than stepping on cygwin's toes, of course). Is this step expected to solve or at least alleviate all or at least some the troubles about the square peg of fork() into the round whole of Windows? cygwin64 may do that... downgrading your OS will not. Ryan -- 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
Re: child (xterm) fork failure as it loads to different address
So no, Windows NT will not work. Neither will Win95/98/2000. Nor will XP SP1/SP2. But if your admins are really so worried about viruses, they won't let you run those ancient operating systems anyway, because MS no longer pushes security patches for them. You misread, I am afraid. I am running Windows 7 here. Question is: Is it expected that turning on POSIX-compatibility mode (possibly with downloading of utilities for UNIX subsystem) should help here or not? Yes, let me try cygwin64 after I am done with rebasing, provided it is still necessary, of course :-) On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Ryan Johnson ryan.john...@cs.utoronto.ca wrote: http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#TOFU On 29/07/2013 8:15 AM, Ariel Burbaickij wrote: OK, thank, you, so usual suspects. Now, removing, antivirus and stuff will not be possible in this particular environment but adjustments in the configuration are well possible, provided I will be able to prove to administrators that troubles, indeed, stem from antivirus and co. Now, I see in the FAQ in 4.42 section that these troubles were traced and attributed to antiviri programs. Any more details about how they were traced exactly, so that I can re-trace them too and provide a proof, if needed? The proof usually goes something like this: 1. People report fork() failures on the list, and a correlation is noted between those failures and presence of app/antivirus X. 2. It is confirmed (or at least considered highly probable) that X performs dll injection, the root cause of these sorts of fork() failures. 3. Somebody tries disabling/removing X and the fork() failures go away. 4. X gets added to BLODA and reports of fork() failures, not attributable to X, disappear from the list. Eventually the process repeats when Y appears. You could also try enabling BLODA detection [1] and see what turns up, or run the NirSoft DLL injection detector [2]. [1] http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2012-02/msg00797.html [2] http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/injected_dll.html Now, this is for one thing. Another one, is the possibility to run Windows 7 (in my case) or any Windows OS, down to and including NT in POSIX-compatible mode. From www.cygwin.com: The Cygwin DLL currently works with all recent, commercially released x86 32 bit and 64 bit versions of Windows, starting with Windows XP SP3. So no, Windows NT will not work. Neither will Win95/98/2000. Nor will XP SP1/SP2. But if your admins are really so worried about viruses, they won't let you run those ancient operating systems anyway, because MS no longer pushes security patches for them. Given that you seem to have your choice of OS, though, you might try 64-bit cygwin. The sheer amount of address space that becomes available, plus some careful design decisions for placement of cygwin-related dlls in that space, reduces the risk of fork failures considerably. I don't think anybody has reported a fork failure on cygwin64 yet (knock on wood). I recently migrated to 64-bit cygwin with a new Win7/64 install myself, and so far have not had to disable Windows Defender; the latter was a recurring source of trouble for my previous 32-bit cygwin install on Win7/64. If you can't get cygwin64 running, you may be able to convince your admins to whitelist cygwin apps with the AV solution; that has a small chance of stopping the dll injection and allowing fork() to succeed. Don't get your hopes up, though: most AV leave the dll injection in place even when completely disabled system-wide, and just tell the dlls not to do anything (other than stepping on cygwin's toes, of course). Is this step expected to solve or at least alleviate all or at least some the troubles about the square peg of fork() into the round whole of Windows? cygwin64 may do that... downgrading your OS will not. Ryan -- 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 -- 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
Re: child (xterm) fork failure as it loads to different address
OK, for the record: looks like rebasing did help quite a bit here. /wbr Ariel Burbaickij On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Ryan Johnson ryan.john...@cs.utoronto.ca wrote: http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#TOFU On 29/07/2013 8:15 AM, Ariel Burbaickij wrote: OK, thank, you, so usual suspects. Now, removing, antivirus and stuff will not be possible in this particular environment but adjustments in the configuration are well possible, provided I will be able to prove to administrators that troubles, indeed, stem from antivirus and co. Now, I see in the FAQ in 4.42 section that these troubles were traced and attributed to antiviri programs. Any more details about how they were traced exactly, so that I can re-trace them too and provide a proof, if needed? The proof usually goes something like this: 1. People report fork() failures on the list, and a correlation is noted between those failures and presence of app/antivirus X. 2. It is confirmed (or at least considered highly probable) that X performs dll injection, the root cause of these sorts of fork() failures. 3. Somebody tries disabling/removing X and the fork() failures go away. 4. X gets added to BLODA and reports of fork() failures, not attributable to X, disappear from the list. Eventually the process repeats when Y appears. You could also try enabling BLODA detection [1] and see what turns up, or run the NirSoft DLL injection detector [2]. [1] http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2012-02/msg00797.html [2] http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/injected_dll.html Now, this is for one thing. Another one, is the possibility to run Windows 7 (in my case) or any Windows OS, down to and including NT in POSIX-compatible mode. From www.cygwin.com: The Cygwin DLL currently works with all recent, commercially released x86 32 bit and 64 bit versions of Windows, starting with Windows XP SP3. So no, Windows NT will not work. Neither will Win95/98/2000. Nor will XP SP1/SP2. But if your admins are really so worried about viruses, they won't let you run those ancient operating systems anyway, because MS no longer pushes security patches for them. Given that you seem to have your choice of OS, though, you might try 64-bit cygwin. The sheer amount of address space that becomes available, plus some careful design decisions for placement of cygwin-related dlls in that space, reduces the risk of fork failures considerably. I don't think anybody has reported a fork failure on cygwin64 yet (knock on wood). I recently migrated to 64-bit cygwin with a new Win7/64 install myself, and so far have not had to disable Windows Defender; the latter was a recurring source of trouble for my previous 32-bit cygwin install on Win7/64. If you can't get cygwin64 running, you may be able to convince your admins to whitelist cygwin apps with the AV solution; that has a small chance of stopping the dll injection and allowing fork() to succeed. Don't get your hopes up, though: most AV leave the dll injection in place even when completely disabled system-wide, and just tell the dlls not to do anything (other than stepping on cygwin's toes, of course). Is this step expected to solve or at least alleviate all or at least some the troubles about the square peg of fork() into the round whole of Windows? cygwin64 may do that... downgrading your OS will not. Ryan -- 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 -- 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
