Deadlock of the process tree when running make

Alexey Izbyshev
Sun Apr 10 20:49:29 GMT 2022

On 2022-04-10 15:13, Alexey Izbyshev wrote:
> On 2022-04-10 10:34, Takashi Yano wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 Apr 2022 23:26:51 +0300
>> Thanks for investigating. In the normal case, conhost.exe is 
>> terminated
>> when hWritePipe is closed.
> Thanks for confirming.
>> Possibly, the hWritePipe has incorrect handle value.
> I've verified that the handle was correct by attaching via gdb to the
> hanging bash and checking that hWritePipe field is now zeroed (which
> happens only in the branch where _HandleIsValid returns true and
> hWritePipe is closed).
> I've found something interesting though. I've modeled a similar
> situation on another machine:
> 1. I've run a native process via bash.
> 2. I've attached to bash via gdb and set a breakpoint on 
> ClosePseudoConsole().
> 3. I've killed the native process.
> 4. The breakpoint was hit, and I looked at hWritePipe value.
> ProcessHacker shows it as "Unnamed file: \FileSystem\Npfs". Both bash
> and conhost had a single handle with such name, and after I've
> forcibly closed it in the bash process (while it was still suspended
> by gdb), conhost.exe indeed died.
> Then I looked at the original hanging tree and found that the hanging
> bash.exe still has a single handle displayed as "Unnamed file:
> \FileSystem\Npfs". I don't know how to check what kernel object it
> refers to, but at least its access rights are the same as for
> hWritePipe that I've seen on another machine, and its handle count is
> 1. So could it be another copy of hWritePipe, e.g. due to some handle
> leak?
> I don't know how to verify whether this suspicious handle in bash.exe
> is paired with "Unnamed file: \FileSystem\Npfs" in conhost.exe, other
> than by forcibly closing it. If I close it and conhost.exe dies, it
> will confirm "the extra handle" theory, but will also prevent further
> investigation with the hanging tree. Do you have any advice?
I've found something that looked strange to me by checking handles in 
the hanging process tree: the hanging conhost.exe and the hanging 
bash.exe belong to different tests. Each test is a separate shell script 
in a separate make recipe, so it looks like conhost.exe was created by 
one test (which is still hanging at a later point in its script, trying 
to run grep), but then bash.exe belonging to another test somehow got a 
pseudoconsole referring to this conhost.exe and now hangs trying to 
close it. So it looks that Cygwin migrated the pseudoconsole between 
processes, and indeed fhandler_pty_slave::close_pseudoconsole() contains 
something looking like migration logic. And this logic contains the 
following call:

DuplicateHandle (GetCurrentProcess (),
                  new_owner, &new_write_pipe,
                  0, TRUE, DUPLICATE_SAME_ACCESS);

Is it safe to create an *inheritable* handle in another process here? 
Could it be that the target process spawns a child at the wrong moment 
(e.g. before it even knows about the newly created handle), and that 
handle unintentionally leaks into the child, triggering the hang 

A similarly suspicious code is also in 

   DuplicateHandle (pcon_owner, get_ttyp ()->h_pcon_write_pipe,
                    GetCurrentProcess (), &hpcon_local.hWritePipe,
                    0, TRUE, DUPLICATE_SAME_ACCESS);
   ResizePseudoConsole ((HPCON) &hpcon_local, size);
   CloseHandle (pcon_owner);
   CloseHandle (hpcon_local.hWritePipe);

If another thread spawns a child using 
CreateProcess(bInheritHandles=TRUE) between DuplicateHandle() and 
CloseHandle(hpcon_local.hWritePipe), the handle will leak into the 

Sorry if this is a false lead, I haven't tried to really understand the 
pseudoconsole-related code yet.


More information about the Cygwin mailing list