Re: Bug#204654: glibc 2.3.2-2 breaks apache on ia64
On Sat, Aug 09, 2003 at 03:32:12PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> At Sat, 9 Aug 2003 02:52:01 +0100,
> Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > willy@rowlf:~$ sudo /etc/init.d/apache start
> > Starting web server: apache/etc/init.d/apache: line 70: 29184 Segmentation fault start-stop-daemon --start --pidfile $PIDFILE --exec $DAEMON
> > failed
> >
> > root@rowlf:~# /usr/sbin/apache
> > Segmentation fault
>
> Could you tell me which apache version do you use?
>
> > Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
> > server_type (cmd=0x60000000000282e3, dummy=0x600000000001a598, arg=0x600000000
> > 282d8 "standalone") at http_core.c:2032
> > 2032 http_core.c: No such file or directory.
> > in http_core.c
>
> http_core.c:2032 is not server_type() in apache 1.3.27.0-2, so your
> apache is not the latest.
I've started investigating this myself, and your statement is incorrect.
server_type() occupies lines 2018 to 2036 of http_core.c in apache
1.3.27.0-2. The bug I reported here is the same as that reported by
Dann Frazier in bug #200698.
Why a recompile fixed it, I don't know. A recompile of 1.3.27.0-2 still
fixes it (and btw means that the patch from Dann isn't necessary ...).
Could this be some exceptionally strange gcc bug?!
Let's summarise:
Apache 1.3.27.0-2 in testing does not work against glibc 2.3.1-16
or 2.3.2-5
Apache 1.3.27-0.2 rebuilt in unstable against glibc 2.3.2-5 headers
with gcc 1:3.3.2ds0-0pre1 works against glibc 2.3.2-5.
Apache 1.3.27-0.2 rebuilt in a testing chroot against 2.3.1-16 headers
with gcc 1:3.3.1-0pre0 does not work against glibc 2.3.1-16
or 2.3.2-5
This does seem to point to gcc, not glibc, being the problem.
And also, btw, points to me being mistaken about glibc triggering
this problem. My apologies. I guess I got apache and glibc on the
same update.
--
"It's not Hollywood. War is real, war is primarily not about defeat or
victory, it is about death. I've seen thousands and thousands of dead bodies.
Do you think I want to have an academic debate on this subject?" -- Robert Fisk
Reply to: