You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> on 2011/04/27 18:24:28 UTC
2.3.12-beta....
Hola de Cancun!
With APR now voting on new releases, I think it would make
sense for us to start targeting our next beta release: 2.3.12.
My plan is likely towards the end of next week, assuming the
APR vote passes...
Concerns? Feedback?
Re: 2.3.12-beta....
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
On 10.05.2011 22:36, Rainer Jung wrote:
> On 10.05.2011 22:03, Rainer Jung wrote:
>> On 10.05.2011 20:57, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>
>>> On May 10, 2011, at 2:46 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10.05.2011 14:30, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>>> Once Jeff applies his hook-probes patch, I'll be doing the
>>>>> T&R within the next few hours.
>>>>>
>>>>> On May 9, 2011, at 3:18 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I plan on doing a T&R tomorrow...
>>>>
>>>> I notice strange trunk failures on my Solaris 10 system. The failures
>>>> were already happening before the probe changes. The Perl script
>>>> RewriteMap process crashes shortly after the fork. In truss I can see
>>>> it closing file descriptors after the fork and then it crashes before
>>>> calling exec or similar. So something around apr_proc_create() seems
>>>> to go wrong, or possibly the apr_procattr are not write.
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't happen on Solaris 8, so it is possible my system is
>>>> borked. It also doesn't happen for 2.2.x.
>>>>
>>>> I'll try to investigate further, but if there is no immediate idea
>>>> about that I'm fine with rolling the beta, because it is not clear,
>>>> whether I have available enough time right now to debug.
>>>
>>> Do the APR tests run cleanly?
>>
>> Unfortunately yes, at least most of the time. The proc tests never
>> failed. I added debug output to apr_proc_create(), the crash happens in
>>
>> apr_pool_cleanup_for_exec();
>>
>> Digging further shows, the crash happens in running the child cleanups
>> for the pconf pool (in the 9th cleanup). Maybe it it related to the
>> testreslist failures, because some of them happen in
>> apr_pool_cleanup_kill. Just a wild speculation.
>>
>> I will try to stop the process before the crash and investigate with the
>> debugger. Unfortunately the core if written doesn't seem usable.
>
> child_cleanup_fn is NULL in a cleanup, that has plain_cleanup_fn equals
> to apr_ldap_pool_cleanup_set_null. Getting closer. At least it is not
> unplausible, because my builds for Solaris 8 and 10 differ by the exact
> LDAP behavior.
>
> Maybe related to log line
>
> [Tue May 10 22:33:08.626119 2011] [ldap:info] [pid 25137] LDAP: SSL
> support unavailable: LDAP: ldapssl_client_init() failed.
>
> maybe not ...
>
> Investigating further.
At least one reason in apr-util: File ldap/apr_ldap_rebind.c contains:
/* APR utility routine used to create the xref_lock. */
APU_DECLARE_LDAP(apr_status_t) apr_ldap_rebind_init(apr_pool_t *pool)
{
apr_status_t retcode = APR_SUCCESS;
#ifdef NETWARE
get_apd
#endif
/* run after apr_thread_mutex_create cleanup */
apr_pool_cleanup_register(pool, &apr_ldap_xref_lock,
apr_ldap_pool_cleanup_set_null, NULL);
#if APR_HAS_THREADS
if (apr_ldap_xref_lock == NULL) {
retcode = apr_thread_mutex_create(&apr_ldap_xref_lock,
APR_THREAD_MUTEX_DEFAULT, pool);
}
#endif
return(retcode);
}
The call
apr_pool_cleanup_register(pool, &apr_ldap_xref_lock,
apr_ldap_pool_cleanup_set_null, NULL);
registers a child cleanup function NULL, which will always crash.
because the functions are called unconditionally in apr_pool.
I will check all apr_pool_cleanup_register() in apr, apr-util and httpd
for similar occurences...
Regards,
Rainer
Re: 2.3.12-beta....
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
On 10.05.2011 22:03, Rainer Jung wrote:
> On 10.05.2011 20:57, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>> On May 10, 2011, at 2:46 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>>
>>> On 10.05.2011 14:30, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>> Once Jeff applies his hook-probes patch, I'll be doing the
>>>> T&R within the next few hours.
>>>>
>>>> On May 9, 2011, at 3:18 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I plan on doing a T&R tomorrow...
>>>
>>> I notice strange trunk failures on my Solaris 10 system. The failures
>>> were already happening before the probe changes. The Perl script
>>> RewriteMap process crashes shortly after the fork. In truss I can see
>>> it closing file descriptors after the fork and then it crashes before
>>> calling exec or similar. So something around apr_proc_create() seems
>>> to go wrong, or possibly the apr_procattr are not write.
>>>
>>> It doesn't happen on Solaris 8, so it is possible my system is
>>> borked. It also doesn't happen for 2.2.x.
>>>
>>> I'll try to investigate further, but if there is no immediate idea
>>> about that I'm fine with rolling the beta, because it is not clear,
>>> whether I have available enough time right now to debug.
>>
>> Do the APR tests run cleanly?
>
> Unfortunately yes, at least most of the time. The proc tests never
> failed. I added debug output to apr_proc_create(), the crash happens in
>
> apr_pool_cleanup_for_exec();
>
> Digging further shows, the crash happens in running the child cleanups
> for the pconf pool (in the 9th cleanup). Maybe it it related to the
> testreslist failures, because some of them happen in
> apr_pool_cleanup_kill. Just a wild speculation.
>
> I will try to stop the process before the crash and investigate with the
> debugger. Unfortunately the core if written doesn't seem usable.
child_cleanup_fn is NULL in a cleanup, that has plain_cleanup_fn equals
to apr_ldap_pool_cleanup_set_null. Getting closer. At least it is not
unplausible, because my builds for Solaris 8 and 10 differ by the exact
LDAP behavior.
Maybe related to log line
[Tue May 10 22:33:08.626119 2011] [ldap:info] [pid 25137] LDAP: SSL
support unavailable: LDAP: ldapssl_client_init() failed.
maybe not ...
Investigating further.
Regards,
Rainer
Re: 2.3.12-beta....
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
On 10.05.2011 20:57, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On May 10, 2011, at 2:46 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>
>> On 10.05.2011 14:30, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> Once Jeff applies his hook-probes patch, I'll be doing the
>>> T&R within the next few hours.
>>>
>>> On May 9, 2011, at 3:18 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>
>>>> I plan on doing a T&R tomorrow...
>>
>> I notice strange trunk failures on my Solaris 10 system. The failures were already happening before the probe changes. The Perl script RewriteMap process crashes shortly after the fork. In truss I can see it closing file descriptors after the fork and then it crashes before calling exec or similar. So something around apr_proc_create() seems to go wrong, or possibly the apr_procattr are not write.
>>
>> It doesn't happen on Solaris 8, so it is possible my system is borked. It also doesn't happen for 2.2.x.
>>
>> I'll try to investigate further, but if there is no immediate idea about that I'm fine with rolling the beta, because it is not clear, whether I have available enough time right now to debug.
>
> Do the APR tests run cleanly?
Unfortunately yes, at least most of the time. The proc tests never
failed. I added debug output to apr_proc_create(), the crash happens in
apr_pool_cleanup_for_exec();
Digging further shows, the crash happens in running the child cleanups
for the pconf pool (in the 9th cleanup). Maybe it it related to the
testreslist failures, because some of them happen in
apr_pool_cleanup_kill. Just a wild speculation.
I will try to stop the process before the crash and investigate with the
debugger. Unfortunately the core if written doesn't seem usable.
Regards,
Rainer
Re: 2.3.12-beta....
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On May 10, 2011, at 2:46 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> On 10.05.2011 14:30, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Once Jeff applies his hook-probes patch, I'll be doing the
>> T&R within the next few hours.
>>
>> On May 9, 2011, at 3:18 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>>> I plan on doing a T&R tomorrow...
>
> I notice strange trunk failures on my Solaris 10 system. The failures were already happening before the probe changes. The Perl script RewriteMap process crashes shortly after the fork. In truss I can see it closing file descriptors after the fork and then it crashes before calling exec or similar. So something around apr_proc_create() seems to go wrong, or possibly the apr_procattr are not write.
>
> It doesn't happen on Solaris 8, so it is possible my system is borked. It also doesn't happen for 2.2.x.
>
> I'll try to investigate further, but if there is no immediate idea about that I'm fine with rolling the beta, because it is not clear, whether I have available enough time right now to debug.
Do the APR tests run cleanly?
Re: 2.3.12-beta....
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
On 10.05.2011 14:30, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Once Jeff applies his hook-probes patch, I'll be doing the
> T&R within the next few hours.
>
> On May 9, 2011, at 3:18 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> I plan on doing a T&R tomorrow...
I notice strange trunk failures on my Solaris 10 system. The failures
were already happening before the probe changes. The Perl script
RewriteMap process crashes shortly after the fork. In truss I can see it
closing file descriptors after the fork and then it crashes before
calling exec or similar. So something around apr_proc_create() seems to
go wrong, or possibly the apr_procattr are not write.
It doesn't happen on Solaris 8, so it is possible my system is borked.
It also doesn't happen for 2.2.x.
I'll try to investigate further, but if there is no immediate idea about
that I'm fine with rolling the beta, because it is not clear, whether I
have available enough time right now to debug.
Regards,
Rainer
Re: 2.3.12-beta....
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
T&R this am.
Re: 2.3.12-beta....
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 5/10/2011 5:49 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>> Once Jeff applies his hook-probes patch, I'll be doing the
>> T&R within the next few hours.
>
> sorry for missing this; dunno why it wasn't visible in gmail
>
> which hook-probes patch?
It seems silly to hold up this beta for hooks redesign, since 2.3.12-beta
is growing stale. Half the issue now are our final changes, but the other
very important half is early adoption by testers and bug feedback!
Something for a 2.3.13 beta?.
Re: 2.3.12-beta....
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> Once Jeff applies his hook-probes patch, I'll be doing the
> T&R within the next few hours.
sorry for missing this; dunno why it wasn't visible in gmail
which hook-probes patch?
(I should go look at other threads)
Re: 2.3.12-beta....
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
On 10.05.2011 14:30, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Once Jeff applies his hook-probes patch, I'll be doing the
> T&R within the next few hours.
>
> On May 9, 2011, at 3:18 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> I plan on doing a T&R tomorrow...
The crash I reported is fixed now in apr-util. It was a missing backport
from trunk (NULL child cleanup function registered in ldap).
It seems we are good to go now :)
Regards,
Rainer
Re: 2.3.12-beta....
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Once Jeff applies his hook-probes patch, I'll be doing the
T&R within the next few hours.
On May 9, 2011, at 3:18 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I plan on doing a T&R tomorrow...
>
Re: 2.3.12-beta....
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
I plan on doing a T&R tomorrow...
Re: 2.3.12-beta....
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 4/27/2011 11:24 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Hola de Cancun!
>
> With APR now voting on new releases, I think it would make
> sense for us to start targeting our next beta release: 2.3.12.
>
> My plan is likely towards the end of next week, assuming the
> APR vote passes...
The APR/APR-util votes look solid, as I caught one small but ugly .mak
file difference while preparing for 2.2.18. I'm going through the 2.2.17
to 2.2.18 win32 build issues now and will be done very shortly.
Jim, did you want to tag 2.2.18, 2.3.12-beta this weekend? I'm thinking
that it would be useful if we were all looking at the same beta reference
going into the Wicklow weekend. I'm happy to roll either or both if you
are busy. Hopefully we can come to some decisions about what 2.4.0 must
have, vs. nice-to-have.
There should be enough connectivity to find the attendees on #httpd-dev
during the gathering from Friday through Sunday, whether folks are there
in person or spirit. We'll attempt to simulcast any in-person idea
sharing to #httpd-dev on irc.freenode.net, as well as dev@httpd with a
bit more lag.