X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20091123100122.GI29173@calimero.vinschen.de> References: <20091119094439 DOT GC29173 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20091120093210 DOT GQ29173 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20091121110204 DOT GB23273 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20091121212239 DOT GD29173 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20091123091612 DOT GE29173 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20091123100122 DOT GI29173 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:07:05 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [1.7] Updated: cygwin-1.7.0-65 From: Huang Bambo To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com 2009/11/23 Corinna Vinschen : > On Nov 23 17:43, Huang Bambo wrote: >> 2009/11/23 Corinna Vinschen : >> > 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 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