[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: 2.4.14 prerelease call for testing #2

Aaron Richton wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009, Howard Chu wrote:

Agreed. But at this point, 2.4.14 is such an improvement over .13 that
I'd rather get it out instead of delay it further. We can revisit this
for .15 when we get some better traces of the problem.

So I was about to write my "I agree" e-mail, but I caught:

   1347                   assert( !syn->ssyn_validate( syn, si->si_ctxcsn+i ));

see https://www.nbcs.rutgers.edu/~richton/test050fail.200902142000 for

Added a few more asserts to HEAD syncprov.c, let's see if we can narrow this down any further. There aren't any other places that set si_si_ctxcsn, so if the closing assert triggers but not the earlier ones, then we probably have an overwrite problem. If the other asserts trigger instead, then we're being fed bad data from something further upstream.

  -- Howard Chu
  CTO, Symas Corp.           http://www.symas.com
  Director, Highland Sun     http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
  Chief Architect, OpenLDAP  http://www.openldap.org/project/