httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joshua Slive <jos...@slive.ca>
Subject Re: A mod_mbox release ?
Date Mon, 12 Dec 2005 14:56:53 GMT

Maxime Petazzoni wrote:
>> * It's been running on mail-archives.apache.org with fewer than X
>> cores (with X tending to 0)
> 
> I don't know if I'm able to check this point on my own : where do
> coredumps go ? Do I have enough access rights to check for them ?
> 
> Anyway, since my last fixes against core dumps, you did not report any
> of them.

I was going to chime in saying that there were no recent cores, but then 
we had one this morning ;-(.  Details below.  But anyway, I think things 
look pretty good given the substantial volume of traffic that mod_mbox 
serves, including search engines that tend to tickle every obscure 
messages and links.

For the coredump, the request was
"GET 
/mod_mbox/db-derby-dev/200507.mbox/%3C42EA7087.40900@Sourcery.Org%3E 
HTTP/1.1"

and the full backtrace:

#0  0x2000000000594940 in strstr () from /lib/tls/libc.so.6.1
No symbol table info available.
#1  0x2000000001020630 in mbox_mime_decode_multipart (p=0x60000000004b93a8,
     body=0x3ffffffffef45b97 <Address 0x3ffffffffef45b97 out of bounds>,
     ct=0x60000000003d05c8 "text/plain", cte=CTE_7BIT, boundary=0x0)
     at mod_mbox_mime.c:34
         mail = (mbox_mime_message_t *) 0x60000000002e0f90
         tmp = 0xc000000000000590 <Address 0xc000000000000590 out of bounds>
         k = 0x60000000003d0000 "ยจ\223K"
         end_bound = 0x200000000102b9a0 "\n\n"
#2  0x200000000101cf20 in mbox_static_message (r=0x60000000004b9418,
     f=0x60000000003d0000) at mod_mbox_out.c:1100
         conf = (mbox_dir_cfg_t *) 0x60000000002e0a28
         m = (Message *) 0x60000000003d03e8
         baseURI = 0x60000000003d00b0 "/mod_mbox/db-derby-dev/200507.mbox"
         from = 0xc00000000000038e <Address 0xc00000000000038e out of 
bounds>
         context = (char **) 0x60000000004bb217
         msgID = 0x60000000004bb217 "<42EA7087.40900@Sourcery.Org>"
#3  0x2000000001018b50 in mbox_file_handler (r=0x60000000004b9418)
     at mod_mbox_file.c:231
         f = (apr_file_t *) 0x60000000003d0000
         fi = {pool = 0x60000000004b93a8, valid = 7598448, protection = 
1604,
   filetype = APR_REG, user = 504, group = 5034, inode = 3408325,
   device = 2065, nlink = 1, size = 13317914, csize = 4294967296,
   atime = 1129164697000000, mtime = 1123654438000000,
   ctime = 1128692829000000,
   fname = 0x60000000003076c8 
"/x1/mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/db-derby-dev/200507.mbox", name = 
0x0, filehand = 0x0}
         status = 4953400
#4  0x400000000004fd70 in ap_run_handler (r=0x60000000004b9418) at 
config.c:158






> 
>> * It can be built against httpd release 2.{0,2}.y without
>> modifications to either httpd, mod_mbox source code or build files
> 
> We got this point.
> 
>> * There is documentation that allows a user (as opposed to the
>> person who wrote the code) to install it and get started serving
>> mail archives
> 
> Documentation is currently inexistant, but if we choose to make a
> mod_mbox release, I could do it in the next few hours. I still have my
> .xml file from my last failed attempt on providing documentation (it
> was rejected because mod_mbox was not part of the main distribution).
> 
>> * There are Z number of open bugs in Bugzilla against the module and
>> T of those need to be fixed before we can release, while U of them
>> can be waived
> 
> Altough ASF's Bugzilla does not have a 'mod_mbox' project and no bugs
> are currently reported for mod_mbox to the Apache-2.x bugzilla
> project, the STATUS file is kinda verbose on known bugs and
> incompatibilities.
> 
> But the fact is that we came to a running mod_mbox (server side) and
> browser incompatibilities are avoided by deactivating the dynamic
> browser if the client is not compatible.
> 
>> S. (and why 0.2, why not 1.0? What are the criteria for 1.0?)
> 
> That's why I only want to call it 0.2 and not 1.0. Because a 0.3 will
> come in the next months I hope to fix these problems and improve the
> thing. I don't think we should call it 1.0 until we make the dynamic
> browser work everywhere. Google makes it for every single
> bleeding-edge web-based application they do, why not us ?
> 
> Thanks for the reply,
> - Sam
> 


Mime
View raw message