https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60487
nsg-apache-httpd-maintena...@sophos.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60487
Eric Covener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||luhli...@redhat.com
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60487
Yann Ylavic changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60487
Yann Ylavic changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||FixedInTrunk
---
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60487
Yann Ylavic changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #34764|0 |1
is
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60487
--- Comment #15 from Eric Covener ---
> Hmm, this is about mod_unixd right?
> My patch's helpers/handlers are in "os/unix/unixd.c", hence statically
> loaded no?
my mistake. Seems like a good plan to me w/ the
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60487
--- Comment #14 from Yann Ylavic ---
(In reply to Eric Covener from comment #13)
>
> Looks good, one caveat
> static unixd: sles12 and ubuntu
> shared unixd: RHEL7, my developer builds (and the commercial distro I
>
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60487
--- Comment #13 from Eric Covener ---
(In reply to Yann Ylavic from comment #12)
> Created attachment 34764 [details]
> Static (common) signal handling for *nix MPMs
>
> This patch seems to work for me.
>
> I could
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60487
--- Comment #12 from Yann Ylavic ---
Created attachment 34764
--> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34764=edit
Common/static signal handling on *nix MPMs
This patch seems to work for me.
I could
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60487
--- Comment #11 from Jeff W ---
After reading the source code at some length, I think I'm getting it now. Just
to see if I'm following along...
- httpd goes through the config file twice in its main loop, once
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60487
--- Comment #10 from Yann Ylavic ---
(In reply to Eric Covener from comment #9)
> > I assumed we wouldn't be able to enter the static functions that touch the
> > static variables, but I guess better safe than sorry.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60487
--- Comment #9 from Eric Covener ---
(In reply to Eric Covener from comment #8)
> (In reply to Yann Ylavic from comment #7)
> > (In reply to Eric Covener from comment #2)
> > >
> > > Maybe a good sanity check would be to
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60487
--- Comment #8 from Eric Covener ---
(In reply to Yann Ylavic from comment #7)
> (In reply to Eric Covener from comment #2)
> >
> > Maybe a good sanity check would be to look
> > for mpm_state == AP_MPMQ_STARTING when
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60487
--- Comment #7 from Yann Ylavic ---
(In reply to Eric Covener from comment #2)
>
> Maybe a good sanity check would be to look
> for mpm_state == AP_MPMQ_STARTING when retained == NULL and no-op'ing it
> altogether. An
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60487
--- Comment #5 from Jeff Wheelhouse ---
Jacob, is it alright if I contact you directly to discuss the issues you're
seeing? We're having two restart-related segfault problems, this is one and we
haven't reported the
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60487
--- Comment #4 from Jacob P ---
Howdy,
On our customers servers, both backtraces involve a signal to gracefully
restart interrupting Apache while it is processing the configuration file in
various places.
We've been
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60487
--- Comment #3 from Jeff Wheelhouse ---
"Did you take some explicit efforts to get a SIGHUP/WINCH sent during the load
of the module?"
No, unfortunately, it rears its ugly head all on its own.
"I am wondering if there
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60487
--- Comment #2 from Eric Covener ---
Thanks for the report and patch.
Did you take some explicit efforts to get a SIGHUP/WINCH sent during the load
of the module? I am wondering if there is something else more likely to
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60487
--- Comment #1 from Jacob P ---
A lot of our customers are starting to see this on their systems. Is there a
chance we can get this looked at for 2.4.26?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60487
Jacob P changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
20 matches
Mail list logo