Re: Do we still have a FIFO / named pipe problem?

2003-03-09 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bruce Evans writes: >> I'm sort of expecting Bruce to commit his own patch ? > >I'm sort of expecting Poul-Henning to report whether it fixes the >sendmail problem :-). Also, since I don't normally run -current, >changes to it are hard to test properly. Ahh, my re

Re: Do we still have a FIFO / named pipe problem?

2003-03-09 Thread Bruce Evans
On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alexander Leiding > er writes: > >On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 23:56:50 +0100 > >"Simon 'corecode' Schubert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Lately Bruce Evans wrote: > >> > >> > This change makes such opens bogusly time out

Re: Do we still have a FIFO / named pipe problem?

2003-03-09 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alexander Leiding er writes: >On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 23:56:50 +0100 >"Simon 'corecode' Schubert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Lately Bruce Evans wrote: >> >> > This change makes such opens bogusly time out after 1 second (unless >> > there is already a writer). >> >

Re: Do we still have a FIFO / named pipe problem?

2003-03-09 Thread Alexander Leidinger
On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 23:56:50 +0100 "Simon 'corecode' Schubert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Lately Bruce Evans wrote: > > > This change makes such opens bogusly time out after 1 second (unless > > there is already a writer). > > > > There seems to be a race in fifo_open(): opens for read don't >

Re: Do we still have a FIFO / named pipe problem?

2003-02-15 Thread Simon 'corecode' Schubert
Lately Bruce Evans wrote: > This change makes such opens bogusly time out after 1 second (unless > there is already a writer). > > There seems to be a race in fifo_open(): opens for read don't > terminate the wait if the reader goes away before the opener looks. > It is not clear if sendmail is a

Re: Do we still have a FIFO / named pipe problem?

2003-02-10 Thread Alexander Leidinger
On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 04:40:34 +1100 (EST) Bruce Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Untested fix for this and rev.1.79, and for a similar race in blocking > opens of named pipes for reading: Solves my problem. Bye, Alexander. -- Actually, Microsoft is sort of a mixture between the Borg and the

Re: Do we still have a FIFO / named pipe problem?

2003-02-09 Thread Bruce Evans
On Sun, 9 Feb 2003, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > ports/mail/gensig has a problem. It is supposed to create a named pipe > (~/.signature) and wait for an application to read from the pipe. It > allows to have a random signature on every mail. On 4.x and on 5-current > from last year it works as exp

Re: Do we still have a FIFO / named pipe problem?

2003-02-09 Thread phk
Yes, we do have FIFO/named pipe problems in -current. I committed a workaround to prevent one particular condition under which my diskless box would hang forever in sendmail processing in /etc/rc by setting a 1 sec timeout on the sleep it hung in. This is nowhere near correct as pointed out by B

Re: Do we still have a FIFO / named pipe problem?

2003-02-09 Thread Fred Souza
> Hi, > > ports/mail/gensig has a problem. It is supposed to create a named pipe > (~/.signature) and wait for an application to read from the pipe. It > allows to have a random signature on every mail. On 4.x and on 5-current > from last year it works as expected. But since the end of the last ye

Do we still have a FIFO / named pipe problem?

2003-02-09 Thread Alexander Leidinger
Hi, ports/mail/gensig has a problem. It is supposed to create a named pipe (~/.signature) and wait for an application to read from the pipe. It allows to have a random signature on every mail. On 4.x and on 5-current from last year it works as expected. But since the end of the last year or the be