Ok, heres my status:

Running without -M, but with -i eth0,eth1, Ntop doesn't segfault.  It
also doesn't give the sanity check error on startup. (It has been
running for 14 hours now - the output log file is 200 Megs).

Awaiting your wonder-patch  :)

Cheers
Chris

On Thu, 2002-01-17 at 03:49, Burton M. Strauss III wrote:
> This is a summary of problems with Ntop 2.0 that I am aware of, and have

> 
> 8. "Unbalanced" problem... Chris Picton et al...
> ==========================
> 
> Briefly, there are a couple of global variables relating to the device a
> packet is seen from.  There are also multiple paths to some places like name
> resolution.  It's possible to create the hash index based on the WRONG hash
> table and then get sanity checks, etc.
> 
> Symptom:  various.  It CAN include a lot of things, but the giveaway seems
> to be these in the log:
> 
> 15/Jan/2002 17:05:08 WARNING: Index 46 out of range [0..32] @ pbuf.c:550
> 
> Also, two different sized hashes (one is 48 the other 32) (more activity on
> one side of your network than the other?)... what I call an "unbalanced"
> network.
> 
> The -M (merge) flag seems to make it worse.  Maybe...
> 
> Here is what I ****THINK**** is happening.  The session purge is invoked
> every 60 seconds (interesting, given it's dying between 1 and 2 minutes into
> the run...)  The Session purge loops through all the devices and follows a
> tortured path through to getHostInfo, where it computes the index.  However,
> the code in pbuf.c uses a global variable actualDeviceId to indicate which
> device and which hash table to use.  The code in the purge loops using i and
> does not set actualDeviceId.
> 
> Basically, this is a "wild" pointer and Ntop will (probably) crash at some
> point, possibly much later...
> 
> This isn't new - there are a number of "FIXME" type comments about the
> problem.  It's just HUGE.  Basically, the global variable needs to die and
> be passed as a parameter around throughout dozens of routines.  Thus when it
> gets to places like getHostInfo, it's using the RIGHT hash.  The -M flag
> just makes it more complex.  The problem is that it's all through the code.
> I've spent a day editing it, and just barely gotten a clean compile.
> 
> ACTION: I'm working on it.
> 
> 
> ==========================================================
> ==========================================================
> 
> -----Burton
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ntop-dev mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://listmanager.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-dev
> 
-- 
Chris Picton
Tangent Systems
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Ntop-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://listmanager.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-dev

Reply via email to