From dev-return-50462-apmail-httpd-dev-archive=httpd.apache.org@httpd.apache.org Fri Nov 18 05:49:30 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 87967 invoked from network); 18 Nov 2005 05:49:28 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 18 Nov 2005 05:49:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 43717 invoked by uid 500); 18 Nov 2005 05:49:24 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 43509 invoked by uid 500); 18 Nov 2005 05:49:24 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 43496 invoked by uid 99); 18 Nov 2005 05:49:24 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 Nov 2005 21:49:24 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: error (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [63.240.77.82] (HELO sccrmhc12.comcast.net) (63.240.77.82) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 Nov 2005 21:50:57 -0800 Received: from [192.168.0.5] (c-24-6-134-233.hsd1.ca.comcast.net[24.6.134.233]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with ESMTP id <2005111805482401200243cve>; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 05:48:35 +0000 Message-ID: <437D6B13.6030102@bfoz.net> Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 21:48:03 -0800 From: Brandon Fosdick User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051007) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: gratuitous call to create_server_config? References: <437AB98F.50207@bfoz.net> In-Reply-To: <437AB98F.50207@bfoz.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.93.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N I just tried returning NULL from create_server_config to see what would happen if I refused to create a config for the master process. Apparently that's a bad idea because it results in a segfault on startup. It seems like the server should be more robust in the face of such things. Has this been fixed in 2.1.9 or should I submit a bug?