--On Tuesday, October 11, 2005 22:32:51 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Quoting David Nolan :

Sorry to hear your employer ties your hands like that.  0.99.2 has
some
serious problems, including some that can trigger a perl bug that
results
in a perl segfault.

   Yeah I know. It's not that i'm not capable of it. The company chose
to stick to an "Enterpise Linux" version so they can get support
tickets from Suse on the software. Good news is, that this is my last
month working for them :o) I'll compile CVS on my Debian Sarge machine
and test your enhancement. I know about the problems with 0.99.2, but
so far (I'm lucky I guess) I haven't had any problems with
segfaulting.

The segfault bug is trigger by calling a text parsing function (from a standard perl module, Text::Parsewords) with particulary large input. The ways I've seen this triggered are parsing monitor output and parsing trap input. I'd bet money it could probably be triggered by a large client request, but I just fixed the problem by not using that routine any more.


   cf error: unknown syntax [exclude_period wd {Mon} md {1-7} hr
{17-22}], line 69



Oh shoot... Now that I go look at the code to find where that comes from I remember that 0.99.2 had a complete parsing bug on exclude_periods that prevented them from ever working. Basically this code: elsif ($var eq "exclude_period" && inPeriod (time, $args) == -1)
               {
                   close (CFG);
return "cf error: malformed exclude_period '$args' (the specified time period is not valid as per Time::Period::inPeriod), line $line_num";
               }

needs to become this code:
                elsif ($var eq "exclude_period")
               {
                    if (inPeriod (time, $args) == -1)
                    {
                        close (CFG);
return "cf error: malformed exclude_period '$args' (the specified time period is not valid as per Time::Period::inPeriod), line $line_num";
                    }
                }


the previous code was always falling through to the else clause.

Jim was talking with me recently about actually designating something a stable version... This seems like one more big reason to stop calling 0.99.2 the stable version. How about it Jim? Call mon-1-1-0pre2 Mon 1.1 and cut a release?

-David

David Nolan                    <*>                    [EMAIL PROTECTED]
curses: May you be forced to grep the termcap of an unclean yacc while
     a herd of rogue emacs fsck your troff and vgrind your pathalias!

_______________________________________________
mon mailing list
mon@linux.kernel.org
http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/mon

Reply via email to