Kristian Lyngstol a écrit :
On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 04:44:48PM +0100, Bernardf FRIT wrote:
Hi,
I'am running :
- varnishd (varnish-2.0.4)
Why not 2.0.6?
When a server is running well, I'm a bit reluctant to upgrade. Now, I'm
ok to upgrade as an attempt to fix this.
and it appears that the
On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 04:44:48PM +0100, Bernardf FRIT wrote:
Hi,
I'am running :
- varnishd (varnish-2.0.4)
Why not 2.0.6?
and it appears that the grsec Kernel repeatedly and unexpectedly sends
signal 11 to the varnishd child.
grsec seems to just report that a segfault occurred. SIGSEG
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 7:59 AM, Bernardf FRIT bern...@frit.net wrote:
Mark Moseley a écrit :
grsec will often report that signals were sent, not that grsec
necessarily sent that signal itself. I don't think I've ever actually
seen it report itself sending a signal to a process. So varnishd
@projects.linpro.no
http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
grsec will often report that signals were sent, not that grsec
necessarily sent that signal itself. I don't think I've ever actually
seen it report itself sending a signal to a process. So varnishd could
be segfaulting for some
Hi,
I'am running :
- varnishd (varnish-2.0.4)
- linux kernel 2.6.27.10-grsec--grs-ipv4-64
and it appears that the grsec Kernel repeatedly and unexpectedly sends
signal 11 to the varnishd child.
.../...
Feb 2 12:01:02 XX varnishd[17111]: segfault at 1000 ip
0043abf0 sp
]] Bernardf FRIT
| Then the parent varnishd process starts immediately a new child process
| which lasts some time.
|
| Is there any way to fix this. Remocve the GRSEC kernel ? Upgrade the
| kernel ? Varnish ? or whatever ?
Work out why it thinks that varnishd is doing something wrong? It
