I've attached another mail that discusses a similar scenario. In my case, the apr_pool_clear fails when sslswamp finishes.
-Madhu >-----Original Message----- >From: Sander Striker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 10:51 AM >To: Mathihalli, Madhusudan >Cc: dev@apr.apache.org; dev@httpd.apache.org >Subject: RE: SEGV in allocator_free > > >On Fri, 2004-03-19 at 19:41, Mathihalli, Madhusudan wrote: >> Well - there might as-well be a bug in httpd (I don't deny that) >> >> But shouldn't APR protect itself against NULL pointers in >allocator_free ? > >And then what? abort()? Also note that this can only happen through >pool misuse (or a severe bug in the pools code). So, running with >pool debugging enabled should point out where things go wrong. > >Sander > >-----Original Message----- >From: Joe Orton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 3:44 AM >To: dev@apr.apache.org >Subject: Re: apr_pool_clear fails if the cleanup handler is still >running > > >On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 01:57:24PM -0800, Stas Bekman wrote: >> It doesn't seem like people are very excited about Colm's >proposal. ;( >> >> I guess I should at least document that pool cleanups and >server shut-down >> don't go together. Which renders pool cleanups in apache as totally >> unreliable, and shouldn't be used for anything crucial. > >It's not really a problem specific to cleanups: if the child was doing >any pool operation (be that allocation, destruction, etc) when the >SIGTERM arrives, it could also die horribly. > >The undocumented assumption is just that most use of APR from a signal >handler is totally unreliable. > >(I do like Colm's proposal, BTW, I'll follow up on that post) > >joe >
