Cygdaemon - planning

Elfyn McBratney
Thu Jul 3 15:33:00 GMT 2003

On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, Nicholas Wourms wrote:

> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 11:17:54AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >
> >>Do we want this?  Wouldn't it be better to have a separate export library
> >>for the functions only available with cygserver?
> >
> >
> > In this scenario, we have always gone with "what does UNIX do?"  I think it
> > is pretty likely that the main users of this code will be existing programs
> > which expect not to have to look in other libraries to find Sys V shm and
> > semaphores.  So, putting the exports in some other library will result in
> > configury changes for existing programs which is something that cygwin
> > tries to avoid.
> >
> > cgf
> Since we have the ddk now, what about making Cygserver into a System
> Device Driver (sys) in the same fashion as the driver for ioperm() or
> WinPcap?  Of course, this could easily open up another can of worms, but
> doesn't U/Win & SFU already do this?

I don't want to do this. Win32 hacking is not something I enjoy in the first
place, but making cygserver a device driver when all it needs to be is a system
service is way overkill.

> One could also considier the
> potential performance gains by going this route.  It would be easier in
> that users wouldn't have to remeber to turn on server, but I suppose
> problematic in that we'd have to worry about a file installed outside of
> the traditional Cygwin tree.

Yep. On some sites I've worked at the admins would allow it's users to install
services, but device drivers?? no way. The best windows root kit was a device
driver, you know...and went undetected. :-)


More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list