From owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Thu Jul 7 09:29:21 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83463B746E9 for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 09:29:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from patfbsd@davenulle.org) Received: from sender163-mail.zoho.com (sender163-mail.zoho.com [74.201.84.163]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 760AA196F for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 09:29:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from patfbsd@davenulle.org) Received: from mr185083 (mr185083.univ-rennes1.fr [129.20.185.83]) by mx.zohomail.com with SMTPS id 1467883758620651.7898755646409; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 02:29:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 11:29:14 +0200 From: Patrick Lamaiziere To: Konstantin Belousov Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 10.3-RELEASE amd64 segmentation faults in wc, sh... Message-ID: <20160707112914.40fd2069@mr185083> In-Reply-To: <20160630125204.GO38613@kib.kiev.ua> References: <20160630135732.76f27305@mr185083> <20160630125204.GO38613@kib.kiev.ua> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.13.2 (GTK+ 2.24.29; amd64-portbld-freebsd10.3) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2016 09:29:21 -0000 Le Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:52:04 +0300, Konstantin Belousov a écrit : Hello, > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 01:57:32PM +0200, Patrick Lamaiziere wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I'm building a pair of firewall with 10.3 and I see some rare > > segmentation faults (5 in a week) in processes like wc, sh or > > ifstated. ... > This is most likely the problems, reported and fixed in r300758, > PR 204764 r302063, and PR 204426 r302236. First and second commits > are already in stable/10, the third one will be merged in several > days. For the record, it looks like the first and second commits fixed this problem here. I've not yet tested the third one (don't know if it is already in 10/stable). Thanks again Konstantin. Regards,