https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63503
--- Comment #15 from Eric Covener <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Ruediger Pluem from comment #14) > (In reply to Don Poitras from comment #13) > > Testing a new fix requires multiple people to be involved and some hours of > > work to get the test done. Seeing that the proposed fix won't address the > > "second example", it's not something we'd be able to test. If you'd like us > > to test something meant to fix all the failures, we'd probably be able to do > > that. > > Ok. Will try to do this. > @Eric any comments from you reviewing my approach? Do you think it gets into > the correct direction from your point of view? I did also think a 2nd thread was concurrently in ap_proxy_initialize_worker() which would leave both using the original worker->cp->pool due to the inconsistent way it's guarded. I guess the fourth backtrace has some missing frames (from the numbering) and is also in apr_sockaddr_info_get()? I am not sure. But if it's right then both are DNS. If we can use a sub-pool, we can add it as volatile and key off of it solving the (potential?) ABI problem with the double-check after grabbing the global mutex. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
