[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Re: [patch] BDB crash

From: Tom Barnes-Lawrence
Subject: Re: [GNUnet-developers] Re: [patch] BDB crash
Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 01:30:07 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i

On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 07:00:38AM +0100, N. Durner wrote:
> GNUnet crashed after a read action, so the database shouldn't be corrupted.
> Just run gdb again...

 Fair 'nuff, here it is, but the disturbing thing is:

#0  0xbf3ff809 in ?? ()
#1  0x40377829 in lowCountContentEntries (handle=0x805e218) at low_bdb.c:320
#2  0x403779c8 in lowWriteContent (handle=0x805e218, name=0xbf3ff8b0, 
    len=1056, block=0x8100668) at low_bdb.c:409
#3  0x403760aa in writeContent (handle=0x8072f58, ce=0xbf3ff990, len=1024, 
    block=0x805e9d4) at high_simple.c:462
#4  0x4026d74f in insertContent (ce=0xbf3ff990, len=1024, data=0x805e9d4, 
    sender=0x80f4b04, duplicate=0xbf3ff98c) at manager.c:689
#5  0x4025ef7d in handleCHK_CONTENT (sender=0x80f4b04, msg=0x805e9d0)
    at handler.c:189
#6  0x0804d77b in handleHelper (msg=0x805e860 "", sender=0x80f4b04,
    crc=-901343250) at handler.c:147
#7  0x0804d954 in handleMessage (tsession=0x805f480, sender=0x80f4b04, 
    msg=0x8103ab0, size=1452, isEncrypted=1, crc=-901343250) at
#8  0x0804ce3e in threadMain (id=-1073744424) at core.c:130
#9  0x401310ba in pthread_start_thread () from /lib/
#10 0x40131101 in pthread_start_thread_event () from /lib/

  Looks remarkably like what I reported last time...
I remember applying the patch, and the timestamps in the source confirm
that, then did make clean, make, make install (as root), and timestamps
on the new versions of gnunetd and all the libraries confirm that.

  Was the patch supposed to be against v0.5.3 (which I applied it to) or
a CVS version?

  Also, I'll ask again in case you missed it the first time: Are you
sure it's OK that it linked itself against libdb3 rather than libdb1
or libdb2? I don't remember anyone saying which version it was written for.
  It could well be that all three have compatible APIs but that some
implementation differences make (foo) OK in one version but not another.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]