DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 delorie.com 562AZ7fF3770344 Authentication-Results: delorie.com; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=cygwin.com Authentication-Results: delorie.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cygwin.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 delorie.com 562AZ7fF3770344 Authentication-Results: delorie.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key, unprotected) header.d=cygwin.com header.i=@cygwin.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=HnZgSviT X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 6A93F3852FCD DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cygwin.com; s=default; t=1751452505; bh=xYsOAEvouK6olnpwQmOqGXJ8awF9a6nGafY6MWqW8hI=; h=Date:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=HnZgSviToZ6Z8PSCurX+trPLw0ZL+E3bYRY1TQ7rlrNkJR6RuGI/z7E5rVOcINaFJ nBIcqbpopdMnnxwDbgs9MOt7z+KaQJTpdJLhX6bD9Y2l+QZD8j3IXVY3NfM3NbjMVX 9sbqGaRsX9w6i82B6NwColOzq8kW/xsz4jtZ8l3c= X-Original-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 2EBED385DDC0 Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2025 12:34:06 +0200 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: setpgid non-compliance with POSIX? Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <3391453b-7914-a319-fad8-4729610558ea AT jdrake DOT com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30 Precedence: list List-Id: General Cygwin discussions and problem reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Cc: Corinna Vinschen Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: cygwin-bounces~archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com Sender: "Cygwin" On Jun 30 12:07, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin wrote: > On Mon, 30 Jun 2025, Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin wrote: > > > On Jun 28 12:32, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin wrote: > > > I was looking at setpgid yesterday, and it seems deficient with respect to > > > the errors required to be returned by the POSIX docs in > > > https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9799919799/functions/setpgid.html > > > > > > Basically, it seems that setpgid allows any arbitrary positive integer to > > > be set as pgid, rather than restricting to setting it to either the > > > process's pid or to an existing pgid in the same session (sid). > > > > Yeah, error checking in setpgid is a bit on the lacking side. With only > > minor changes, the function is basically 25 years old :} > > The POSIX docs metioned that an old BSD allowed setting arbitrary pgid > > > Off the top of my head I don't know how to check the pgid already exists. > > Do you? > > I think it'd have to iterate all processes and check pgid and sid members > of pinfo until it found a match. I'd suggest not to follow up on this for now. We didn't have any problems with this so far. If you like you can create a testcase as a known failure, but a real fix of this without OS support is a lot of work with a questionable gain. Corinna -- 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