This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [Patch] Fixing the PROCESS_DUP_HANDLE security hole.

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 12:46:46PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> >Can the code simply propagate the actual exit code into the exitcode
> >field (since Windows programs don't know about signals)?
> And who would use it?  How would a UNIX program know that the "negative"
> exit code represented a windows error code?  A UNIX program would
> interpret the low order bytes as indicating a signal number and would
> think that there was a core dump if the appropriate bit was set.  The
> exitcode field is just for use by the cygwin DLL.  There is no way for a
> UNIX program to get more than eight bits (seven bits for signals) of
> exit code from a process.

Isn't that exactly what I said in the part that was snipped?  As long as
ant (as a Cygwin shell script), for example, can rely on handling Java
programs that exit with code 1 or 2 (as opposed to 0), it should be fine.
I don't think any portable program uses negative exit codes for anything
other than indicating some sort of failure (for which a positive exit code
would do just fine).  And I don't think we should care about non-portable
      |\      _,,,---,,_
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"The Sun will pass between the Earth and the Moon tonight for a total
Lunar eclipse..." -- WCBS Radio Newsbrief, Oct 27 2004, 12:01 pm EDT

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]