Bill, you continue to ignore the fact that I use the term "*we*" "We" is *inclusive*.
Again, in your continued efforts to win points and cast aspersions, you completely miss the point. > On Apr 18, 2018, at 10:26 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > > Does the root of this issue go back to this backport? > > Author: minfrin > Date: Tue Feb 13 22:11:47 2018 > New Revision: 1824180 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1824180&view=rev > Log: > mod_proxy_balancer,mod_slotmem_shm: Rework SHM reuse/deletion to not > depend on the number of restarts (non-Unix systems) and preserve shared > names as much as possible on configuration changes for SHMs and persisted > files. PR 62044. > trunk patch: http://svn.apache.org/r1822509 > http://svn.apache.org/r1822511 > http://svn.apache.org/r1823412 > http://svn.apache.org/r1823415 > http://svn.apache.org/r1823416 > http://svn.apache.org/r1823564 > http://svn.apache.org/r1823572 > http://svn.apache.org/r1823575 > 2.4.x patch: trunk works (modulo CHANGES) > (or > http://home.apache.org/~ylavic/patches/httpd-2.4.x-PR62044-slotmems_reuse.patch) > +1: ylavic, jim, minfrin > > > If that's true, certain protestations over the horrors of refactoring are > obvious crocodile tears, perhaps owing to a lack of actual evalution > of the code one votes up +1 with insufficient (no?) attention to detail? > > Each reviewer voting up a backport shares the full ownership of any > such change on behalf of HTTP Server project, and the shares in the > collective mea culpa. If that reviewer were to try to lay all blame on the > original author of such a patch... wow... shameful. > > > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 9:01 AM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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 >>> >>> >>>
