Mail Archives: cygwin/2009/11/23/09:08:04
2009/11/23 Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>:
> On Nov 23 17:43, Huang Bambo wrote:
>> 2009/11/23 Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>:
>> > On Nov 22 09:33, Huang Bambo wrote:
>> >> And there's another quesiton:
>> >> The handle of chile process( created by fork ) seems never been closed
>> >> bye parent process. Is it need to be closed?
>> >
>> > I don't understand the question. =A0There's one dangling socket handle=
left
>> > and I know where and why it happens. =A0Other than that, I don't see a=
ny
>> > other socket handling which is left open accidentally.
>> >
>> While run my last test code, every time comes one connection, there
>> are 3 handle leak( I monited it by Process Explorer( from
>> www.sysinternals.com)), one is the chile process's handle, one is of
>> "Section =A0 =A0 =A0\BaseNamedObjects\cygwin1S5-9770bb4ddbd85dca\cygpid.=
xxxx",
>> the other one is of \Device\Afd.
>> I mean is there any other leak with those handles.
>
> The leak is a result of the parent process not calling wait(2) or
> waitpid(2) to reap the child process. =A0If you let the process properly
> call wait/waitpid, you won't see a leak, except for the current socket
> leak this thread is about.
There's some diffirence between cygwin and other *nix:
In other *nix with this condition, those ended child process could be
list by ps command with <defunc>tag, will you fix it?
--
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
- Raw text -