This isn't fair Jim, the previous code didn't work as expected either, IMHO.
Regarding PR 62277 for instance, it worked because it attach()ed SHMs of unrelated balancers instead of creating new ones (this was the paper over SysV vs Posix, not the actual code which I think shows the real/potential issue on some systems). For this PR 62308, let's see if this is a crash or the annoying AH02599 "only". In both cases "mea culpa maxima" (flogging myself and so on) but yes changes can be buggy and I don't see why you seem to imply that all this was gratuitous and for the sake of changing/breaking code. It was intended to be bug fixes only, any bug revealed by the previous being fixed itself fixed, when should we give up? I don't... Please let's be constructive and not impugn motives on why a code is changed, it's sometimes simply needed, and in any case open to review/feedback/veto/tests at any time, including when it's proposed for backport. On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 1:56 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > Most likely it is due to some assumptions in slotmem based on the underlying > shm implementation, ie: SysV or Posix. > > I would be remiss is pointing out that here is yet another case where > instead of a simple fix for a bug, we instead refactored a sh*t-ton of code > and in the process, broke stuff. > > Can we PLEASE avoid using bug reports as opportunities to > show everyone how smart we are and rewrite whole swaths of > code... please! > > > On Apr 17, 2018, at 12:37 PM, Exonetric <m...@exonetric.com> wrote: > > FWIW, I am seeing this too, but examining the code I could not see how. It > looks like it just does a shm destroy and then moves on to recreating the > SHM segment. > > On 17 Apr 2018, at 14:03, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > > This should not be a fatal error... I don't think it was before. > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: bugzi...@apache.org > Subject: [Bug 62308] New: Apache crashes after graceful restart with > AH02599: slotmem (failed size check) > Date: April 17, 2018 at 6:21:09 AM EDT > To: b...@httpd.apache.org > Reply-To: "Apache HTTPD Bugs Notification List" <b...@httpd.apache.org> > > https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62308 > > Bug ID: 62308 > Summary: Apache crashes after graceful restart with AH02599: > slotmem (failed size check) > Product: Apache httpd-2 > Version: 2.4.33 > Hardware: PC > Status: NEW > Severity: regression > Priority: P2 > Component: mod_proxy_balancer > Assignee: b...@httpd.apache.org > Reporter: d...@d-velop.de > Target Milestone: --- > > Created attachment 35878 > --> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35878&action=edit > logfile with configuration change example > > After updating from 2.4.27 to 2.4.33, we get a crash when doing a graceful > restart after modifying the mod_proxy/mod_proxy_balancer configuration in > the > filesystem. > We are modifying the configuration files dynamicaly when our infrastructure > changes. After this, we do a graceful restart using the following Windows > command: httpd.exe -k restart > This worked fine with 2.4.27 and below. > With 2.4.33 we get the following message: > AH02599: existing shared memory for > C:/Apache24/temp/slotmem-shm-p17ffdef3.shm > could not be used (failed size check) > > I've added a Apache logfile with an example of configuration change that > causes > this issue > > -- > You are receiving this mail because: > You are the assignee for the bug. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: bugs-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: bugs-h...@httpd.apache.org > > >
