Aaron Richton wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009, Howard Chu wrote:
Agreed. But at this point, 2.4.14 is such an improvement over .13 that
I'd rather get it out instead of delay it further. We can revisit this
for .15 when we get some better traces of the problem.
So I was about to write my "I agree" e-mail, but I caught:
1347 assert( !syn->ssyn_validate( syn, si->si_ctxcsn+i ));
see https://www.nbcs.rutgers.edu/~richton/test050fail.200902142000 for
backtrace.
Added a few more asserts to HEAD syncprov.c, let's see if we can narrow this
down any further. There aren't any other places that set si_si_ctxcsn, so if
the closing assert triggers but not the earlier ones, then we probably have an
overwrite problem. If the other asserts trigger instead, then we're being fed
bad data from something further upstream.
--
-- Howard Chu
CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/
