[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       qmail-ldap
Subject:    Re: qmail-ldap-xx.patch or qmail-ldap-control?
From:       Claudio Jeker <jeker () n-r-g ! com>
Date:       2000-11-25 14:50:37
[Download RAW message or body]

On Thu, Nov 23, 2000 at 11:19:16PM +0100, Mark Ruijter wrote:
> Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
> 
> > Quoting Turbo Fredriksson <turbo@bayour.com>:
> > 
> > > Just a note. I just found one of the bugs in the latest qmail-ldap-controls
> > > patch, I just have one more to crush before upload...
> > 
> > Seems like it wasn't that easy to squash the FIRST one! :)
> > 
> > 'qmail-remote crashed'...
> > 
> > And that's if I send a mail to 'turbo@bayour.com'... If I send a mail to
> > 'turbo@papadoc.bayour.com' it works...
> > 
> > If I strace the pid of qmail-rspawn, I get this, anyone have an idea?
> > (my mind is blank right now :)
> > 
> > ----- s n i p -----
> > [pid 24016] connect(3, {sin_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(25), \
> > sin_addr=inet_addr("217.8.32.4")}}, 16) = -1 EINPROGRESS (Operation now in \
> > progress) [pid 24016] select(4, NULL, [3], NULL, {60, 0}) = 1 (out [3], left {60, \
> > 0}) [pid 24016] getpeername(3, {sin_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(25), \
> > sin_addr=inet_addr("217.8.32.4")}}, [16]) = 0 [pid 24016] fcntl(3, F_GETFL)       \
> > = 0x802 (flags O_RDWR|O_NONBLOCK) [pid 24016] fcntl(3, F_SETFL, O_RDWR)   = 0
> > [pid 24016] --- SIGSEGV (Segmentation fault) ---
> > <... select resumed> )                  = ? ERESTARTNOHAND (To be restarted)
> > --- SIGCHLD (Child exited) ---
> > ----- s n i p -----
> 
> Hi there,
> 
> This is a part of our logfile:
> Nov 23 14:20:20 smtprelay qmail: 974985620.231890 delivery 60981: deferral: \
>                 qmail-remote_crashed./
> Nov 23 15:04:14 smtprelay qmail: 974988254.037372 delivery 61264: deferral: \
>                 qmail-remote_crashed./
> Nov 23 15:07:00 smtprelay qmail: 974988420.525349 delivery 61278: deferral: \
>                 qmail-remote_crashed./
> Nov 23 16:07:00 smtprelay qmail: 974992020.725670 delivery 61789: deferral: \
>                 qmail-remote_crashed./
> Nov 23 16:44:13 smtprelay qmail: 974994253.167299 delivery 62100: deferral: \
> qmail-remote_crashed./ 
> We're using qmail with the qmail-ldap-1.03-20000701.patch compiled with TLS enabled \
> on a redhat 6.1 system with kernel 2.2.16. The problem is the added TLS code to \
> qmail-remote. We solved our problem for now by recompiling with the 'stock' \
> qmail-remote.c instead of the patched one.
> This seems to have solved our problem.

The 20000701 patch had a bug in the TLS code. It is fixed in the 200010xx
patch found on http://diehard.n-r-g.com
 
> The size of the patched qmail-remote is also reason for concern (performance):
> -rwx--x--x    1 root     qmail       25288 Nov 23 17:03 qmail-remote       -> \
>                 Standard version
> -rwx--x--x    1 root     root       462724 Nov 23 17:03 qmail-remote.org   -> \
> Patched version 
> We haven't been able to reproduce this problem in a controlled manner. Have you?
> It would make tracing a lot easier.
> 
Bigger does not always mean slower. Probably the ssl stuff is not in a
shared library and this makes the code much bigger. 

-- 
later
Claudio

mailto:cjeker@n-r-g.com


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]