Good catch.

The other places where I see that assertion are:
  client_side.c:clientHandleIMSReply
  store_client.c:storeClientCopy



On 20/07/2008, at 1:51 PM, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:

Hmm... on a second reading of this thread there seems to be at least two
cases where this triggers. The assertion in your first message is
different from this trace (store_client.c, not client_side.c)

I suspect the other one is via clientCheckHeaderDone(). Maybe there is
more..

Regards
Henrik

On lör, 2008-07-19 at 21:23 -0700, Mark Nottingham wrote:
Sorry it took so long; see below.

(gdb) bt
#0  0x0000000800bcb89c in pthread_testcancel () from /lib/
libpthread.so.2
#1  0x0000000800bb95c3 in sigaction () from /lib/libpthread.so.2
#2  0x0000000800bbb0e2 in sigaction () from /lib/libpthread.so.2
#3  0x0000000800bb4db6 in pthread_kill () from /lib/libpthread.so.2
#4  0x0000000800bb4633 in raise () from /lib/libpthread.so.2
#5  0x0000000800fce63d in abort () from /lib/libc.so.6
#6  0x000000000043539e in xassert ()
#7  0x0000000000428652 in clientCacheHit ()
#8  0x0000000000422d19 in storeClientCopyHeadersCB ()
#9  0x000000000048c7e6 in storeClientCallback ()
#10 0x000000000048d0a3 in storeClientReadBody ()
#11 0x00000000004a4c56 in storeAufsReadDone ()
#12 0x00000000004a7272 in aioCheckCallbacks ()
#13 0x00000000004900f3 in storeDirCallback ()
#14 0x000000000043439a in comm_select ()
#15 0x0000000000467ac9 in main ()


Need anything more specific?

Cheers,


On 08/07/2008, at 1:44 AM, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:

On tis, 2008-07-08 at 13:30 +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote:
Seen again.

assertion failed: store_client.c:172: "!EBIT_TEST(e->flags,
ENTRY_ABORTED)"

Perhaps this?

http://www.squid-cache.org/Versions/v2/2.7/changesets/12220.patch

Maybe. Quite likely related. Most likely there is some store client
forgetting to check for abort. But yes, that patch males
ENTRY_ABORTED a
bit more likely condition than before.

Should be very easy to fix if you could get a stack trace of the
failure.

Regards
Henrik

--
Mark Nottingham       [EMAIL PROTECTED]


--
Mark Nottingham       [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Reply via email to