On 2/6/24 08:55, Mateusz Krawczyk via Exim-users wrote:
10:50:46 275444 flushing headers buffer
10:50:46 275444 writing data block fd=8 size=8189 timeout=300
10:50:46 275444 tls_write(0xfcf658, 8189)
10:50:46 275444 SSL_write(0x119ac20, 0xfcf658, 8189)
10:50:46 275444 outbytes=8189 error=0
10:50:46 LOG: MAIN PANIC
10:50:46   SIGSEGV (fault address: 0x4)
10:50:46 275444 flushing headers buffer
10:50:46 275444 writing data block fd=8 size=8189 timeout=300
10:50:46 275444 tls_write(0xfcf658, 8189)
10:50:46 LOG: MAIN PANIC
10:50:46   SIGSEGV (null pointer indirection)
10:50:46 275444 SSL_write(0x119ac20, 0xfcf658, 8189)
10:50:46 LOG: MAIN PANIC
10:50:46   SIGSEGV (275431 handling incoming connection from (AGNIESZKA)
[x.x.x.x] I=[x.x.x.x]:25
10:50:46 )

There seems to be two processes mixed up, here.  One is writing a message
out, which implies a transport process running the smtp transport
(and, wow, that message seems to have a large amount of headers content).

The other one is receiving an inbound message - note the different PID)
and SEGV'd from a null-pointer indirection.  It's that one we're interested in.
Most of the debug lines for that don't seem to include a PID;
the obvious one before the SIGSEGV are

10:50:46 Renaming spool header file: 
/var/spool/exim//input/i/1rWvci-000000019eR-2FFn-H
10:50:46 Size of headers = 644
10:50:46 LOG: MAIN
10:50:46   <= [email protected] H=(AGNIESZKA) [x.x.x.x] I=[x.x.x.x]:25 P=esmtpa
A=login:[email protected] S=5155019 [email protected]
T="Test message"

That "<=" log line at least gives us a place in receive.c we know
we got as far as.  We don't seem to have gotten as far as sending an SMTP
response (I'd expect a debug line for that) - sos the suspect code range
is not too long (4383 - 4521 in my working copy)


We're not getting much info from the self-produced stack backtrace;
almost certainly the compile was not including debug info ("cc -ggdb")
and may even have been stripped.  A pity.  Are you set up for getting
coredump files?  If so, please feed one to gdb and see if it's any
better for a stack backtrace ("bt").
If not - could you?

(The "libpthread" function in the stack is interesting... perhaps that's
an artifact of handling the SIGSEGV though)


--
Cheers,
  Jeremy

--
## subscription configuration (requires account):
##   https://lists.exim.org/mailman3/postorius/lists/exim-users.lists.exim.org/
## unsubscribe (doesn't require an account):
##   [email protected]
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/

Reply via email to