From owner-freebsd-questions  Mon Aug 26 20:51:54 1996
Return-Path: owner-questions
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id UAA04939
          for questions-outgoing; Mon, 26 Aug 1996 20:51:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gdi.uoregon.edu (cisco-ts16-line5.uoregon.edu [128.223.150.205])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA04916
          for <questions@freebsd.org>; Mon, 26 Aug 1996 20:51:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (dwhite@localhost) by gdi.uoregon.edu (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA00506; Mon, 26 Aug 1996 20:51:49 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 20:51:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Doug White <dwhite@gdi.uoregon.edu>
Reply-To: dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu
To: Administrator Blair <blair@cyber-naut.com>
cc: questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: FTPD premature exit
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960826212347.171A-100000@strech.cyber-naut.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.94.960826205121.365Q-100000@gdi.uoregon.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-questions@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 26 Aug 1996, Administrator Blair wrote:

> > 1)  Did the unpatched binary do the same thing (die with a segmentation
> > fault)?
> 
> NO, it works.
>  
> > 2)  Do you have this problem with other system binaries under heavy load?
> 
> No, just the FTPD.

This sounds more like a problem with the patch.  I'm not experienced with
the patch in question so I'd try re-applying the patch and trying again.

Doug White                              | University of Oregon  
Internet:  dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu    | Residence Networking Assistant
http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~dwhite    | Computer Science Major