From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Dec 21 11:15:41 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA07252 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 11:15:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from pau-amma.whistle.com (s205m64.whistle.com [207.76.205.64]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA07242 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 11:15:35 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dhw@whistle.com) Received: (from dhw@localhost) by pau-amma.whistle.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id LAA14214; Mon, 21 Dec 1998 11:13:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dhw) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 11:13:49 -0800 (PST) From: David Wolfskill Message-Id: <199812211913.LAA14214@pau-amma.whistle.com> To: gram@cdsec.com, kaleb@ics.com Subject: Re: inetd in realloc(): warning: junk pointer, too low to make sense. Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <199812210938.LAA17923@cdsec.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG >From: Graham Wheeler >Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 11:38:00 +0200 (SAT) >> My 3.0-RELEASE system, up some 17 days, is now doing this when I telnet >> (or ping, or anything else that uses inetd) to it. (I don't know how long >> it's been like this, perhaps it explains why my outgoing email seem to >> be being dropped on the floor. >> Do I remember correctly that there was some fix for this made shortly >> before 3.0-RELEASE? Did the fix not make it into 3.0-RELEASE? Before >> I go snag the LaG inetd sources, will that fix the problem? >There is an open problem report, bin/8183, about this. I have just received >mail saying that the fix I posted changes the signal mask for child processes >and breaks Amanda; I haven't had a chance to look at this yet, and have not >experienced any problems myself. You may want to try the patches and see how >it goes. It's still a little early to tell for sure, but things with amanda & 3.0 seem to be no worse than they were before Matt's first patch (that caused inet's child processes (such as amandad) to be forked off with interrupts blocked), and may actually be better. With only the first patch applied, the symptom was an immediate amandad failure, whining about dup UDP packets, then amandad would hang (until killed). (One of my colleagues is running a 3.0 system that is often under significant load; its amandad typically has started failing within 3 or 4 days. He re-started the patched inetd Friday....) david -- David Wolfskill UNIX System Administrator dhw@whistle.com voice: (650) 577-7158 pager: (650) 371-4621 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message