DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to
	:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; q=dns; s=
	default; b=RCI7nEbeKxPuUwoU4c7YTPSZXOW4s4N88Z2xXwiziHaLvXPLhgRqJ
	20pO+BuEsa8THFuXfYpbZP9zEaQU5oODrt0xCi0v950kkgT8GykEDzTt3o/nPhWK
	WNbmfTLDoFC4N+x3hdD40IcVGy2ubesItAS2Drt7s1J9GaCyap2iBw=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 21:00:51 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: fixing BLODA-caused fork failures
Message-ID: <20131004010051.GA4730@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <CAJty3ZxPwByrCu6No2-53vc3QiDXX1G8KZd3RC5K8xBEA4k2ww AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJty3ZxPwByrCu6No2-53vc3QiDXX1G8KZd3RC5K8xBEA4k2ww@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)

On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 04:55:19PM -0400, Adam Kellas wrote:
>My company uses Cygwin and we experience fairly frequent fork
>failures, believed to be BLODA-related. I say "believed to be" because
>in this corporate environment, like many, we cannot uninstall the
>virus scanner even long enough to see what happens without it. The
>presumed culprit in our case is Microsoft Forefront Endpoint
>Protection, by the way.
>
>So we need Cygwin and we're stuck with Forefront, putting us between a
>rock and a hard place. It's clear from the documentation and mailing
>list that the official stance wrt BLODA is "sorry, can't help you" and
>I understand and accept that. I'm looking for the answer to a related
>question: are BLODA-caused fork failures a logically unsolvable
>problem due to the way Windows works or is it just a matter of round
>tuits? In other words, if we were (hypothetically) able to pay someone
>to make MS Forefront and Cygwin play nicely together, would that have
>a chance of success? And would the Cygwin maintainers allow such work
>into the code base or consider it an unfortunate precedent?

It wouldn't be without precedent.  I've done work for companies before
and the work has made it into the code base.  But I can't predict if it
is even possible to make things work better in this case.

Contact me at "me at-sign cgf period cx" and we can discuss the
possibility of at least investigating what's involved.

--
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