Should be fixed in 3ec8e576d99a332514a5338671a18413ce03ba98. Thanks for reporting.
- Martin On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Brian Knox <[email protected]> wrote: > Just a heads up that I reported test_shutdown_stress segfaulting recently on > the list as well, so +1 > > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 2:52 AM, Martin Hurton <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I will look into it. Thanks! >> >> - Martin >> >> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 2:23 AM, hp010170 <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Marc, Martin: >> > >> > I am not sure if this is related, however, I have observed that: >> > >> > 1. tests/test_shutdown_stress.cpp seg-faults on seemingly random runs >> > 2. test_shutdown_stress uses PUB/SUB >> > 3. test_shutdown_stress does uses tcp:// instead of inproc:// >> > >> > To illustrate: >> > >> > --x--x-- >> > hp $ for i in {1..20}; do ./tests/test_shutdown_stress; done >> > test_shutdown_stress running... >> > Segmentation fault >> > test_shutdown_stress running... >> > Segmentation fault >> > test_shutdown_stress running... >> > test_shutdown_stress running... >> > Segmentation fault >> > test_shutdown_stress running... >> > test_shutdown_stress running... >> > test_shutdown_stress running... >> > test_shutdown_stress running... >> > test_shutdown_stress running... >> > Segmentation fault >> > test_shutdown_stress running... >> > test_shutdown_stress running... >> > test_shutdown_stress running... >> > test_shutdown_stress running... >> > test_shutdown_stress running... >> > Segmentation fault >> > test_shutdown_stress running... >> > Segmentation fault >> > test_shutdown_stress running... >> > Segmentation fault >> > test_shutdown_stress running... >> > Segmentation fault >> > test_shutdown_stress running... >> > test_shutdown_stress running... >> > test_shutdown_stress running... >> > Segmentation fault >> > --x--x-- >> > >> > As you can see, I am not able to make out a pattern from a precursory >> > glance. I haven't plugged in the debugging tools yet, this was just >> > from regularly building the code, I noticed the issue. >> > >> > The above is from the latest libzmq in the repository. >> > >> > Let me know if I can provide any more information. >> > >> > -HP >> > >> > On 10/06/2012 18:39, Martin Hurton wrote: >> >> Hi Marc, >> >> >> >> 1) could you create an issue >> >> 2) could you put together minimal C program reproducing this bug and >> >> make pull request so it finds its way into issues repo >> >> >> >> Thanks, martin >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 9:19 PM, Marc Criley <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >>> I'm getting: >> >>> >> >>> Assertion failed: ok (mailbox.cpp:79) >> >>> >> >>> when trying to shut down my application. After having searched the >> >>> archives >> >>> and whitepapers I'm still at a loss. Here's the structure of what I >> >>> have and >> >>> am trying to do (version 2.1.9-1, distributed with Ubuntu): >> >>> >> >>> - One main thread establishes a PUB socket using the 'inproc' >> >>> transport. >> >>> - Four separate threads each open a SUB socket. >> >>> - 'inproc' requires the pub and sub sockets to use the same context, >> >>> so that >> >>> is done. >> >>> - Each subscriber socket waits on 'recv()' for something to arrive, >> >>> which is >> >>> then processed, and returns back to waiting for the next message. >> >>> >> >>> Everything runs fine in the application. However, at shutdown: >> >>> >> >>> - There is no pending traffic, it has all been cleared. >> >>> - The main thread closes its PUB socket. >> >>> - The main thread invokes zmq_term, which blocks. >> >>> - This unblocks the four subscriber threads waiting on recv(). >> >>> - Each subscriber thread closes its socket and the thread terminates. >> >>> >> >>> At this point I expect the main thread call of zmq_term() to complete. >> >>> That's not what happens, instead I get: >> >>> >> >>> Assertion failed: ok (mailbox.cpp:79) >> >>> >> >>> I believe I did this in accordance with the 0MQ Termination whitepaper >> >>> (http://www.zeromq.org/whitepapers:0mq-termination), and this is the >> >>> sequence I use to shutdown a tcp transport client thread, which works >> >>> without problem. >> >>> >> >>> Deferring closing the PUB socket until after zmq_term doesn't work, as >> >>> zmq_term blocks until the socket is closed. >> >>> >> >>> Any suggestions would be appreciated. >> >>> >> >>> Marc C >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> zeromq-dev mailing list >> >>> [email protected] >> >>> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >> >>> >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > zeromq-dev mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >> _______________________________________________ >> zeromq-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
