Re: BUG?: Dsync over piped process (DSYNC_RUN_TYPE_CMD): EPIPE if X (done) is received in another write after F (finish)

2016-05-19 Thread J. Nick Koston
TC 2016 > > On 19 May 2016, at 03:54, J. Nick Koston <http://dovecot.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dovecot>> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > It appears that dsync closes the file handle once it gets the F (finish) > > response even if it hasn’t received the

BUG?: Dsync over piped process (DSYNC_RUN_TYPE_CMD): EPIPE if X (done) is received in another write after F (finish)

2016-05-18 Thread J. Nick Koston
, however the trace is provided without SSL since its easier to see whats going on. Thanks J. Nick Koston # dovecot --version 2.2.24 (a82c823) dovecot-2.2.24-1.x86_64 F\n is in packet 1 X\n is in packet 2 STRACE of an the unexpected EPIPE: [pid 34753] read(4, "F\n", 524288) = 2 [pid 3475

Re: dovecot Digest, Vol 163, Issue 34

2016-11-17 Thread J. Nick Koston
Aki, Multiple local_names would be ideal to accommodate certificates that have multiple names. The way I’m reading the code it looks like its having to pay for the memory for every name on the certificate because a unique CTX is being created for each name even if they are all on a single

Multiple names in local_name for UCC certificates (was lazy-load SNI?)

2016-11-30 Thread J. Nick Koston
0001-config-Match-multiple-names-in-local_name.patch Description: Binary data smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Dovecot 2.3.0 assertion failure on LMTP delivery

2018-01-26 Thread J. Nick Koston
Hi, We are seeing a frequent assertion failure on LMTP delivery with 2.3.0. This only appears to happen on CentOS/RHEL 7. Jan 24 08:30:58 smoker-devautomerge-c7-1 dovecot: lmtp(29540): Panic: file lib-event.c: line 148 (event_unref): assertion failed: (event != current_global_event) Jan 24

Re: Dovecot 2.3.0 assertion failure on LMTP delivery

2018-01-28 Thread J. Nick Koston
= {buffer = 0x55ac2dab8278, element_size = 48}, v = 0x55ac2dab8278, v_modifiable = 0x55ac2dab8278}} > On Jan 27, 2018, at 4:40 PM, Aki Tuomi <aki.tu...@dovecot.fi> wrote: > > Hi! > > This is a bug in the new event code. Can you get a full gdb backtrace? > >