Re: store_client assertion in 2.7STABLE3

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot_at_yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:22:40 -0700

Good catch.

The other places where I see that assertion are:
   client_side.c:clientHandleIMSReply
   store_client.c:storeClientCopy

On 20/07/2008, at 1:51 PM, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:

> Hmm... on a second reading of this thread there seems to be at least
> two
> cases where this triggers. The assertion in your first message is
> different from this trace (store_client.c, not client_side.c)
>
> I suspect the other one is via clientCheckHeaderDone(). Maybe there is
> more..
>
> Regards
> Henrik
>
> On lör, 2008-07-19 at 21:23 -0700, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> Sorry it took so long; see below.
>>
>> (gdb) bt
>> #0 0x0000000800bcb89c in pthread_testcancel () from /lib/
>> libpthread.so.2
>> #1 0x0000000800bb95c3 in sigaction () from /lib/libpthread.so.2
>> #2 0x0000000800bbb0e2 in sigaction () from /lib/libpthread.so.2
>> #3 0x0000000800bb4db6 in pthread_kill () from /lib/libpthread.so.2
>> #4 0x0000000800bb4633 in raise () from /lib/libpthread.so.2
>> #5 0x0000000800fce63d in abort () from /lib/libc.so.6
>> #6 0x000000000043539e in xassert ()
>> #7 0x0000000000428652 in clientCacheHit ()
>> #8 0x0000000000422d19 in storeClientCopyHeadersCB ()
>> #9 0x000000000048c7e6 in storeClientCallback ()
>> #10 0x000000000048d0a3 in storeClientReadBody ()
>> #11 0x00000000004a4c56 in storeAufsReadDone ()
>> #12 0x00000000004a7272 in aioCheckCallbacks ()
>> #13 0x00000000004900f3 in storeDirCallback ()
>> #14 0x000000000043439a in comm_select ()
>> #15 0x0000000000467ac9 in main ()
>>
>>
>> Need anything more specific?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>
>> On 08/07/2008, at 1:44 AM, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
>>
>>> On tis, 2008-07-08 at 13:30 +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>>> Seen again.
>>>
>>>>> assertion failed: store_client.c:172: "!EBIT_TEST(e->flags,
>>>>> ENTRY_ABORTED)"
>>>>>
>>>> Perhaps this?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.squid-cache.org/Versions/v2/2.7/changesets/12220.patch
>>>
>>> Maybe. Quite likely related. Most likely there is some store client
>>> forgetting to check for abort. But yes, that patch males
>>> ENTRY_ABORTED a
>>> bit more likely condition than before.
>>>
>>> Should be very easy to fix if you could get a stack trace of the
>>> failure.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Henrik
>>
>> --
>> Mark Nottingham mnot_at_yahoo-inc.com
>>

--
Mark Nottingham       mnot_at_yahoo-inc.com
Received on Sun Jul 20 2008 - 21:25:31 MDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Jul 21 2008 - 12:00:07 MDT