On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:58:54 +, Joe Orton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are those who can reproduce this segfault using a reverse proxy to an
> SSL backend (i.e. SSLProxyEngine on)?
Not in my case.
My entire SSL-related setup (expurging sensitive info, of course :)
##
>-Original Message-
>From: Joe Orton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[SNIP]
>
>A question for you: why did you want to delete the EOC bucket in
>core_output_filter? That code looks wrong too, since last_e is left
>pointing at the deleted EOC bucket.
>
Well.. I thought the EOC is not specific to
On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 09:20:37AM -0800, Mathihalli, Madhusudan wrote:
>
> >-Original Message-
> >From: Joe Orton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [SNIP]
> >Are those who can reproduce this segfault using a reverse proxy to an
> >SSL backend (i.e. SSLProxyEngine on)?
> [SNIP]
>
> Yes and No
>-Original Message-
>From: Joe Orton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[SNIP]
>Are those who can reproduce this segfault using a reverse proxy to an
>SSL backend (i.e. SSLProxyEngine on)?
[SNIP]
Yes and No :)
Yes - I have the directive in the ssl.conf.
No - I'm not proxying to a SSL backend.
Ho
Are those who can reproduce this segfault using a reverse proxy to an
SSL backend (i.e. SSLProxyEngine on)? That case is certainly one trigger
for the problem: mod_proxy does not call ap_flush_conn so the EOC bucket
is never sent. (there may still be other triggers)
joe
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 02:04:05PM -0800, Mathihalli, Madhusudan wrote:
> >-Original Message-
> >From: Joe Orton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [SNIP]
> >I think the correct fix is to stop trying to send the shutdown from the
> >cleanup, which didn't actually work anyway. Can you test somethi
>-Original Message-
>From: Joe Orton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[SNIP]
>I think the correct fix is to stop trying to send the shutdown from the
>cleanup, which didn't actually work anyway. Can you test something
>like:
It works (atleast I don't see any SEGV's). The question still remains,
: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 7:49 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: [PATCH ?] RE: SEGV in allocator_free
>
>
>On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 06:51:41PM -0800, Mathihalli, Madhusudan wrote:
>> Do we need to do the following ? I tried it - the test continued to a
>> certain e
On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 06:51:41PM -0800, Mathihalli, Madhusudan wrote:
> Do we need to do the following ? I tried it - the test continued to a
> certain extent, only to fail again after some time (with the same
> stack trace)
What's the repro case for this? You're running swamp against an
SSL->HT
Mathihalli, Madhusudan wrote:
Somehow the message just went to Sander !
-Madhu
-Original Message-
From: Mathihalli, Madhusudan
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 11:01 AM
To: 'Sander Striker'
Subject: RE: SEGV in allocator_free
-Original Message-
From: Sander Strik
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:49:42 -0800, "Mathihalli, Madhusudan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the error DOES NOT happen on (vanilla) 2.0.48
> - it happens on (vanilla) 2.0.49
I think this is the same problem that I reported in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/new-httpd/message/48117
http://groups.yaho
At 07:47 PM 3/19/2004, Mathihalli, Madhusudan wrote:
>>-Original Message-
>>From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>At 01:30 PM 3/19/2004, Mathihalli, Madhusudan wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Sander Striker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>[SNIP]
all
On Sat, 2004-03-20 at 02:47, Mathihalli, Madhusudan wrote:
> >-Original Message-
> >From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >At 01:30 PM 3/19/2004, Mathihalli, Madhusudan wrote:
> >>>-Original Message-
> >>>From: Sander Striker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>[SNIP]
|| (APR_BUCKET_IS_EOS(last_e)
&& c->keepalive == AP_CONN_KEEPALIVE))) {
>-Original Message-
>From: Mathihalli, Madhusudan
>Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 5:48 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: SEGV in allocator_free
>
>
>>-Original Messa
>-Original Message-
>From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>At 01:30 PM 3/19/2004, Mathihalli, Madhusudan wrote:
>>>-Original Message-
>>>From: Sander Striker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>[SNIP]
>>>
>>>allocator = 0x0, that's bad. You didn't do a full httpd rebuild,
;Subject: RE: SEGV in allocator_free
>
>
>At 01:30 PM 3/19/2004, Mathihalli, Madhusudan wrote:
>>>-Original Message-
>>>From: Sander Striker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>[SNIP]
>>>
>>>allocator = 0x0, that's bad. You didn't do a f
At 01:30 PM 3/19/2004, Mathihalli, Madhusudan wrote:
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Sander Striker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[SNIP]
>>
>>allocator = 0x0, that's bad. You didn't do a full httpd rebuild, so
>>there is no way of telling what pool this is. Can you do a full
>>rebuild (with poo
>-Original Message-
>From: Sander Striker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[SNIP]
>
>allocator = 0x0, that's bad. You didn't do a full httpd rebuild, so
>there is no way of telling what pool this is. Can you do a full
>rebuild (with pool debugging enabled)? Is this vanilla httpd-2.0.48?
Pretty
On Fri, 2004-03-19 at 20:01, Mathihalli, Madhusudan wrote:
[...]
> >Can you give a backtrace of where it does abort? And maybe the name
> >of the pool that is being checked (p pool->tag)? Have you stepped
> >through the code with gdb?
>
> Sure.. here it is. There are 2 traces -
>
> Let me kno
Somehow the message just went to Sander !
-Madhu
>-Original Message-
>From: Mathihalli, Madhusudan
>Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 11:01 AM
>To: 'Sander Striker'
>Subject: RE: SEGV in allocator_free
>
>
>
>
>>-Original Message-
>
On Fri, 2004-03-19 at 19:44, Mathihalli, Madhusudan wrote:
> I'm getting a abort in apr_pool_check_integrity() - even before Apache comes up
> properly !
> I was thinking of commenting out the check_integrity() code - but then it probably
> negates the whole effort !
Dropping [EMAIL PROTECTED],
On Fri, 2004-03-19 at 19:41, Mathihalli, Madhusudan wrote:
> Well - there might as-well be a bug in httpd (I don't deny that)
>
> But shouldn't APR protect itself against NULL pointers in allocator_free ?
And then what? abort()? Also note that this can only happen through
pool misuse (or a seve
CTED]
>Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 10:41 AM
>To: Mathihalli, Madhusudan
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: SEGV in allocator_free
>
>
>On Fri, 2004-03-19 at 19:08, Mathihalli, Madhusudan wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I am trying to test a SSL Proxy serve
Mathihalli, Madhusudan
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: SEGV in allocator_free
>
>
>How is this apr? seems you have a pool scope bug causing a
>double-clear?
>
>Bill
>
>At 12:08 PM 3/19/2004, Mathihalli, Madhusudan wrote:
>>Hi,
>>
On Fri, 2004-03-19 at 19:08, Mathihalli, Madhusudan wrote:
> Hi,
> I am trying to test a SSL Proxy server using sslswamp, and I'm running into
> the following segmentation fault !
>
> There appears to be some missing error checks in the APR library - here's the
> backtrace:
> (Apache 2.0.4
How is this apr? seems you have a pool scope bug causing a double-clear?
Bill
At 12:08 PM 3/19/2004, Mathihalli, Madhusudan wrote:
>Hi,
>I am trying to test a SSL Proxy server using sslswamp, and I'm running into
> the following segmentation fault !
>
>There appears to be some missing e
Hi,
I am trying to test a SSL Proxy server using sslswamp, and I'm running into
the following segmentation fault !
There appears to be some missing error checks in the APR library - here's the
backtrace:
(Apache 2.0.48 - and I haven't tried 2.0.49)
(gdb) bt
#0 0xc1ba2190:0 in a
27 matches
Mail list logo
