--
Here's some more details on that crash...
=====================
I tried putting the line
jserv_pool = NULL;
at the beginning of the jserv_init function. This stops the
crashes but I don't know if it has bugs of its own. It's certainly
an ugly fix. Any advice from the mod_jserv list would be appreciated.
To recap, the problem is that jserv_init does something like
jserv_protocol_initall (...);
...
jserv_pool = ap_make_sub_pool (p);
...
return; }
where jserv_protocol_initall does something with jserv_pool if
jserv_pool
is not NULL. Since jserv_pool is initially NULL, this works ok. But
after
jserv_init returns, ap_clear_pool destroys jserv_pool (at least under -X
from standalone_main, and apparently also with multiple processes,
though
I haven't traced it). Then later, jserv_init gets called again, so it
can
reinitialize jserv_pool. Except before jserv_pool gets set,
jserv_protocol_install
tries to use the *old* value of jserv_pool, which now points to freed
memory.
This hadn't been causing any problems here til recently. I think what
has happened
is this. ap_clear_pool leaves the old jserv_pool on the alloc.c free
list. It also frees
some other stuff which also goes on the free list. Until recently,
between the
ap_clear_pool call and resetting jserv_pool, the memory pointed to by
jserv_pool
hadn't actually been allocated by anyone else, so its contents were
undisturbed
and jserv_protocol_initall didn't crash. Recenty I changed my
Stronghold configuration
to have some more certificate info or something like that. That meant
that more stuff
got allocated; in particular, the block still pointed to by jserv_pool
got allocated and
trashed. I think turning on ALLOC_DEBUG would confirm this pretty
quickly, though
I didn't try running with ALLOC_DEBUG turned on.
The idea of the jserv_pool = NULL patch is to make sure that
jserv_protocol_initall
doesn't try to use the now-freed jserv_pool. But I'm not sure this is
the right fix.
I don't understand why it is that jserv_pool isn't allocated BEFORE
calling the
other stuff. But I figured the implementers did it that way for a
reason, so I
didn't change it. Maybe someone who understands the logic of the
program better
than I do can answer this.
Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks.
Paul Rubin
Brodia
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
READ THE FAQ!!!! <http://java.apache.org/faq/>
Archives and Other: <http://java.apache.org/main/mail.html/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
