apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mathihalli, Madhusudan" <mad...@hp.com>
Subject RE: SEGV in allocator_free
Date Fri, 19 Mar 2004 19:16:49 GMT
I've attached another mail that discusses a similar scenario.

In my case, the apr_pool_clear fails when sslswamp finishes.


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Sander Striker [mailto:striker@apache.org]
>Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 10:51 AM
>To: Mathihalli, Madhusudan
>Cc: dev@apr.apache.org; dev@httpd.apache.org
>Subject: RE: SEGV in allocator_free
>On Fri, 2004-03-19 at 19:41, Mathihalli, Madhusudan wrote:
>> Well - there might as-well be a bug in httpd (I don't deny that)
>> But shouldn't APR protect itself against NULL pointers in 
>allocator_free ?
>And then what?  abort()?  Also note that this can only happen through
>pool misuse (or a severe bug in the pools code).  So, running with
>pool debugging enabled should point out where things go wrong.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Joe Orton [mailto:joe@manyfish.co.uk]
>Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 3:44 AM
>To: dev@apr.apache.org
>Subject: Re: apr_pool_clear fails if the cleanup handler is still
>On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 01:57:24PM -0800, Stas Bekman wrote:
>> It doesn't seem like people are very excited about Colm's 
>proposal. ;(
>> I guess I should at least document that pool cleanups and 
>server shut-down 
>> don't go together. Which renders pool cleanups in apache as totally 
>> unreliable, and shouldn't be used for anything crucial.
>It's not really a problem specific to cleanups: if the child was doing
>any pool operation (be that allocation, destruction, etc) when the
>SIGTERM arrives, it could also die horribly.
>The undocumented assumption is just that most use of APR from a signal
>handler is totally unreliable.
>(I do like Colm's proposal, BTW, I'll follow up on that post)

View raw message