https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
Rainer Jung changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||simeon.fais...@dxc.com
--- Comment #34
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
--- Comment #33 from Rainer Jung ---
Unfortunately apache-2.0/Makefile.in contains a type, the flag was named
-export-symbols-regexp instead of -export-symbols-regex (no "p" at the end of
the flag name). To make this fix work, one has to fix
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
--- Comment #32 from Michael Osipov ---
(In reply to Rainer Jung from comment #31)
> I checked the libtool code. It provides the option -export-symbols-regexp,
> which was suggested and which I know committed, and it also provides
>
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
--- Comment #31 from Rainer Jung ---
I checked the libtool code. It provides the option -export-symbols-regexp,
which was suggested and which I know committed, and it also provides
-export-symbols with a file name containing the symbols. The
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
--- Comment #30 from Mark Thomas ---
Sounds good to me. Tx.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
--- Comment #29 from Rainer Jung ---
I don't have a solution ready in the direction that Michael mentions. Because
we don't call a linker directly and we don't want to. Linker flags are not
standardized. That's one reason for using libtool.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
--- Comment #28 from Mark Thomas ---
Rainer, do you have a timescale in mind for applying the proposed patch or a
variation? I'm planning on a mod_jk tag and release soon - hopefully this week.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #38503|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
--- Comment #27 from Michael Osipov ---
(In reply to Josef Čejka from comment #21)
> Created attachment 38538 [details]
> Limit mod_jk.so exported symbols to "jk_module" only.
>
> I found the real culprit. Please ignore my previous patch.
>
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
Michael Osipov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||micha...@apache.org
--
You are
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
--- Comment #26 from Michael Osipov ---
(In reply to Rainer Jung from comment #25)
> Not sure how highly nonportable, at least it uses libtool.
>
> Attributes are often used in GCC style. Do you have a concrete suggestion
> how to use them in
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
--- Comment #25 from Rainer Jung ---
Not sure how highly nonportable, at least it uses libtool.
Attributes are often used in GCC style. Do you have a concrete suggestion how
to use them in a portable way to only export the jk_handler symbol?
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
--- Comment #24 from Michael Osipov ---
The patch provided is highly not portable. Why not use internal attributes
which mark symbols as public/private?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
--- Comment #23 from Rainer Jung ---
Too many typos:
Thanks for the great finding!
I plan to apply your patch.
Since -E is not a standardized linker flag I would rather prefer to not include
it. For me it made no difference, whether I add
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
--- Comment #22 from Rainer Jung ---
Thanks for the great finding!
I plan to apply your patch.
Since -E is not a standardized linker flag I would rather prefer to not include
it. For me it made no difference, whether I add the -Wl,-E (so the
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
Josef Čejka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jce...@suse.cz
--- Comment #21 from
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
--- Comment #20 from Josef Čejka ---
Created attachment 38503
--> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38503=edit
Do not reuse jk_apr_pool
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
--- Comment #19 from Josef Čejka ---
I have two customers reporting the same issue on SLES15-SP4 but I can't
reproduce it by myself.
With additional debug messages like in comment #11 log showed that it crashed
when jk_resolve() was reusing
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
--- Comment #18 from Rainer Jung ---
Unfortunately I have no explanation:
- my RHEL 8 test system did also have the myhostname entry without problem
- his debug log output showed different behavior than mine with respect to pool
reuse, but I
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
--- Comment #17 from Christopher Schultz ---
That's really very strange. "myhostname" is something RHEL-specific which I am
unable to test, but whatever it is should not cause mod_jk or httpd to crash.
Rainer, do you have any explanation for
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
--- Comment #16 from Lothar ---
Meanwhile I found the cause:
systemd-239-51.el8_5.5.x86_64 is updating /etc/nsswitch.conf
< hosts: files dns
---
> hosts: files dns myhostname
after removing myhostname it works again.
see:
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
--- Comment #15 from Lothar ---
Is it possible to enable a similar logging in apr?
How to implement?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
--- Comment #14 from Lothar ---
In strace I found the following file openings related to apr:
3657933: 0.51 openat(AT_FDCWD, "/opt/apache24/lib/libaprutil-1.so.0",
O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC) = 3
3657933: 0.59 openat(AT_FDCWD,
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
--- Comment #13 from Christopher Schultz ---
(In reply to Lothar from comment #12)
> I tried both MPM prefork and worker. (but usually we use prefork)
> Apache 2.4.53 ( I tried also older Versions like 2.4.46)
> APR: 1.7.0 / APR-Util 1.6.1
>
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
--- Comment #12 from Lothar ---
Hi Rainer,
Yes, this happens immediately after start up.
According to strace 47µs after start:
0.47 rt_sigreturn({mask=[]}) = 3342918277296713689
0.47 --- SIGSEGV {si_signo=SIGSEGV,
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
--- Comment #11 from Rainer Jung ---
It seems the crash happens in the second parent during the Apache startup. On
Unix/Linux Apache creates a first parent, then replaces it by another parent
and then starts the children. The first parent
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
--- Comment #10 from Christopher Schultz ---
Are you able to build a patched version of mod_jk? I'd like to add some logging
to figure out what's happening.
It looks like we are trying to "clean" an APR memory pool and something is
wrong with
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
--- Comment #9 from Lothar ---
Created attachment 38250
--> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38250=edit
Dumpfile
I replaced sensitive data, hoepfully completely and without damaging the dump
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
Lothar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEEDINFO|NEW
--- Comment #8 from Lothar ---
is it
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
Christopher Schultz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |NEEDINFO
--- Comment #7 from
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
Lothar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEEDINFO|NEW
--- Comment #6 from Lothar ---
status
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
--- Comment #5 from Lothar ---
Hi Christopher,
yes, these where the last log entries.
I attached the full debug logs.
Sorry, but I can`t upload the core file.
This behavior is since last patching of RHEL8.
But right now, I don`t know, which of
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
--- Comment #4 from Lothar ---
Created attachment 38248
--> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38248=edit
debug log related to vHost
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
--- Comment #3 from Lothar ---
Created attachment 38247
--> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38247=edit
debug logs related to server level
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
Christopher Schultz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |NEEDINFO
--
You are receiving
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
--- Comment #2 from Christopher Schultz ---
You have no provided enough information to investigate this crash.
Does the log file end after what you have posted?
Please post the full backtrace of the crash, or, if you are comfortable doing
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
--- Comment #1 from Lothar ---
I did some further investigation. with strace
SEGSEGV was raised 0.44 after start up:
0.44 --- SIGSEGV {si_signo=SIGSEGV, si_code=SI_USER, si_pid=52811,
si_uid=0} ---
0.116226 +++ killed by SIGSEGV (core
38 matches
Mail list logo
