From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Feb 19 21:29:48 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E23D716A4CE
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:29:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FE5643D2F
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:29:48 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com)
Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4])
	by mail.pcnet.com (8.12.10/8.12.1) with ESMTP id i1K5TlSQ010340;
	Fri, 20 Feb 2004 00:29:47 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 00:29:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>
X-Sender: eischen@pcnet5.pcnet.com
To: Doug White <dwhite@gumbysoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <20040219203518.V55111@carver.gumbysoft.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10402200022450.6052-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: openldap server + kse = bewm
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 05:29:49 -0000

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Doug White wrote:

> hey folks,
> 
> Looks like the OpenLDAP server, slapd, and KSE don't get along too well.
> 
> I can reliably segfault slapd by doing a few requests of it on a -CURRENT
> machine built this morning PST.  TLS seems to accelerate things, but it

What is TLS?

> can be done without.  I have this backtrace, with a debugging libpthread,
> but I'm not sure how useful it is to you folks.
> 
> This is 100% reproducible, although initially it was croaking in
> pthread_testcancel() instead of a kse function. This leads me to suspect
> strange mutex corruption, but I'd like someone who understands kse to at
> least spot-check.

Usually, this is from something that is using %gs and stomping
on our LDTs.  Any warnings from the kernel about static LDT
allocations?

> I thought at first it might be some strange interaction between berkeley
> db 4.2's special assembly mutexes and kse, but I rebuilt db42 with pthread
> mutexes and rebuilt openldap to use DB_PRIVATE so the db would mount, but
> no change in status.
> 
> Here's the trace from gdb:

This doesn't show much to me...

-- 
Dan Eischen