From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Dec 22 00:14:27 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA16173 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 00:14:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from citadel.cdsec.com (citadel.cdsec.com [192.96.22.18]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA16155 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 00:14:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gram@cdsec.com) Received: (from nobody@localhost) by citadel.cdsec.com (8.8.8/8.6.9) id KAA05184; Tue, 22 Dec 1998 10:13:26 +0200 (SAST) Received: by citadel via recvmail id 5124; Tue Dec 22 10:13:07 1998 From: Graham Wheeler Message-Id: <199812220820.KAA20421@cdsec.com> Subject: Re: inetd in realloc(): warning: junk pointer, too low to make sense. To: dhw@whistle.com (David Wolfskill) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 10:20:47 +0200 (SAT) Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <199812211913.LAA14214@pau-amma.whistle.com> from "David Wolfskill" at Dec 21, 98 11:13:49 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25-h4.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > >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. I think that the Amanda problem was actually with that patch, and not with mine. I was sent a test program to illustrate the break, and ran it on the unpatched inetd and then again after applying my patch, and the signal masks in the child were the same in each case (no signals blocked). We have a number of clients running our firewalls with my patch applied to inetd and no-one has reported any problems yet. The standard disclaimers apply, of course ;-). The idea of using a pipe to hold flags for signals to be processed was not mine; Don Lewis and Warner Losh suggested it to me, so they should take much of the credit for the patch. -- Dr Graham Wheeler E-mail: gram@cdsec.com Citadel Data Security Phone: +27(21)423-6065/6/7 Firewalls/Virtual Private Networks Fax: +27(21)24-3656 Internet/Intranet Network Specialists Data Security Products WWW: http://www.cdsec.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message