Patrik Lundin <pat...@sigterm.se> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 07:10:33AM +0200, Patrik Lundin wrote:
>>
>> The summary for now looks like this:
>> Working: amd64, sparc64
>> Broken: i386, macppc
>>
>> Is there some relation between threading and 32/64 bit? It is the main
>> thing that sticks out currently, since sparc64 rules out an endian issue
>> as far as i can tell.
>>
Hi Patrik. Sorry if I kinda ignored this opendnssec problem, I couldn't
find a solution quickly enough.
>
> So there might be some light at the end of the opendnssec tunnel.
> I have noticed that the thread stack size is smaller on i386 than it is
> on amd64 using this code snippet:
> ---
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <pthread.h>
>
> pthread_attr_t attr;
> size_t stacksize;
>
> int main (){
> pthread_attr_init(&attr);
> pthread_attr_getstacksize(&attr, &stacksize);
>
> printf("stacksize: %d\n", stacksize);
>
> return 0;
> }
> ---
>
> While amd64 and sparc64 reports 524288, i386 says 262144. It looks like I have
> been able to stop opendnssec from crashing by modifying a wrapper function to
> pass an attribute variable to pthread_create(), increasing the stack size:
> ---
> pthread_attr_t attr;
> size_t stacksize;
> pthread_attr_init(&attr);
> pthread_attr_getstacksize(&attr, &stacksize);
> pthread_attr_setstacksize(&attr, stacksize * 2);
> ---
>
> The above was inspired from this thread:
> http://openbsd-archive.7691.n7.nabble.com/Default-Posix-thread-stack-size-td47465.html
>
> Anyway, I have sent a message regarding this to one of the nlnet people. I
> will
> report back with how things goes. I am not sure if this is the correct fix, or
> if one should instead store less data on the stack or something.
Very nice! Yes, asking upstream is the right thing to do.
If they don't plan to do a release with that stack size problem
addressed, I think it would be ok to import opendnssec with a temporary
patch.
--
jca | PGP : 0x1524E7EE / 5135 92C1 AD36 5293 2BDF DDCC 0DFA 74AE 1524 E7EE
