From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 23 01:14:55 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7339B24B for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 01:14:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ig0-x234.google.com (mail-ig0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2ED9414A for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 01:14:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ig0-f180.google.com with SMTP id b16so14914099igk.1 for ; Sun, 22 Feb 2015 17:14:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=1gy7m53lkkKXp62OVSTw/OXlv4Ao1ObJD9flqVSOuPY=; b=FGYW65/Oem4BOchhEZuQ25RVnQ1K5Kd/LLxMkSiiuYGRIiNdYI9wnYcd6vNbd5nr17 M4CGG/Cj+x2BVOfZLdsicj0OldIIaG3PDaMt7D76yudKMeQEe2KPkyM58HaiNQUOvaUg A7YWa/zcjzEa4jWIYlCvPz+7tk2g3RVi438rPUuMbJTge2ruflUCwT3Miy6EMALwfvYU mTWpgRfr2fVJHYeQEalxjf39+fsWkZtKYDU9xkh3TumP9W7g2ULqyw/MpUp2kWzsNSJK YKVBws3YPyLyl/WCY1GENtTnBI4Cmz1iNPdM0Ufd+KeQEa1dgltFTWIK2s6WY9cgXN6A FCZA== X-Received: by 10.107.30.148 with SMTP id e142mr1937157ioe.4.1424654094735; Sun, 22 Feb 2015 17:14:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([50.243.6.59]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 184sm11823326ion.14.2015.02.22.17.14.53 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 22 Feb 2015 17:14:53 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54EA7F0D.4080008@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 18:14:53 -0700 From: jd1008 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RESOLVED, SORT OF: Re: why would I get a segmentation fault on one system but not the other? References: <20150221224006.GA5501@home.parts-unknown.org> <09da5ec0816e098badc49432c802dc18@sdf.org> <390c4c0547fc27e91d28872d29aa2e04@sdf.org> <20150222091956.fd1ec914.freebsd@edvax.de> <20150222104425.GA44573@home.parts-unknown.org> <9134.76.193.19.10.1424620110.squirrel@cosmo.uchicago.edu> <590FB195-C4E9-4D22-8900-ABE784CE9896@parts-unknown.org> <20150222205918.GA68253@home.parts-unknown.org> <11645.76.193.19.10.1424642451.squirrel@cosmo.uchicago.edu> <20150223010501.GA48633@home.parts-unknown.org> In-Reply-To: <20150223010501.GA48633@home.parts-unknown.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 01:14:55 -0000 On 02/22/2015 06:05 PM, David Benfell wrote: > On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 04:00:50PM -0600, Valeri Galtsev wrote: >> One more thing. If you can not run it under debugger for whatever reason, >> you can take a look which libraries the main binary, and php module (and >> other things that are used by crashing apache) are linked to (ldd is your >> friend ;-). > As it happens, I *was* able to run it under debugger. And traced it to > mail/cclient . > > It's an odd and unhappy result. I have the exact same version running > on the older machine. But cclient is fairly obviously a dependency of > php55-imap and removing that extension indeed enables php-fpm to start. > > Before removing the extension, I tried portmaster -Rft on cclient; it > completed successfully, but running php-fpm still yielded the > segfault. > > That this appears on one machine and not the other suggests > unreproducibility; should I file a bug report? > > php-imap isn't something I personally use. I think some of my web > applications are able to use it. > Personally, I am not convinced. Even if your 2 machines were 100% identical in every respect to the minutest details, I would need to test on another 10 identical machines. But then, that's just me :) Cheers, JD