On 8/29/2021 5:07 AM, Takashi Yano via Cygwin wrote:
On Sat, 28 Aug 2021 18:41:02 +0900
Takashi Yano wrote:
On Sat, 28 Aug 2021 10:43:27 +0200
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Aug 28 02:21, Takashi Yano via Cygwin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 12:00:50 -0400
Ken Brown wrote:
Two years ago I thought I needed nt_create to avoid problems when calling
set_pipe_non_blocking. Are you saying that's not an issue? Is
set_pipe_non_blocking unnecessary? Is that the point of your modification to
raw_read?
Yes. Instead of making windows read function itself non-blocking,
it is possible to check if the pipe can be read before read using
PeekNamedPipe(). If the pipe cannot be read right now, EAGAIN is
returned.
The problem is this:
if (PeekNamedPipe())
ReadFile(blocking);
is not atomic. I. e., if PeekNamedPipe succeeds, nothing keeps another
thread from draining the pipe between the PeekNamedPipe and the ReadFile
call. And as soon as ReadFile runs, it hangs indefinitely and we can't
stop it via a signal.
Hmm, you are right. Mutex guard seems to be necessary like pty code
if we go this way.
I have found that set_pipe_non_blocking() succeeds for both read and
write pipes if the write pipe is created by CreateNamedPipe() and the
read pipe is created by CreateFile() contrary to the current create()
code. Therefore, not only nt_create() but also PeekNamedPipe() become
unnecessary.
Please see the revised patch attached.
I haven't had a chance to test this myself yet, but occurs to me that we might
have a different problem after this patch: Does the write handle that we get
from CreateNamedPipe() have FILE_READ_ATTRIBUTES access?
Ken
--
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
