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

[Fwd: Bug#509184: bacula-director-pgsql: Director crashes with double free from jcr.c:343]


I received bug#509184 today.  It was reported against a version of
bacula in backports, but applies to the version in lenny as well (though
not the version in sid).

The bug in question is a double-free and does not appear to be a
security hole.  It results in a crash of the entire backup system.  It
seems to be somewhat rare, but I am not certain of that.

Upstream has issued a small patch that they have tested.

Would you approve an upload to testing-proposed-updates into lenny with
such a patch if I built it?

-- John
--- Begin Message ---
* fabien foglia <fabien.foglia@tigrou3tac.org> [2008-12-19 12:30:51 CET]:
> Version: 2.4.2-3.1~bpo40+1

 As this is a backports version I would encourage you to either ask
directly on backports-users mailinglist which is the central address for
packages taken from backports, and/or at least send me a copy of the
bugreport when you're confident that it's not just a problem of the
backport. :)

> I'm using etch-backports bacula-director with postgresql support on
> Debian etch/amd64.
> Sometimes, director crashes with  "ABORTING due to ERROR in
> smartall.c:194 *double* *free* from jcr.c:343"
> It's the bug #1162 in the bacula bug tracker.
> It's resolved with this patch :
> http://puzzle.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/bacula/2.4.2-jobend-crash.patch

 Ah, that's neat and convenient. The patch looks pretty tight to the
issue. I am discussing with John what's the best approach for it. For
what I understand it's a crash after the backup is finished so the
impact is pretty low?

> please merge this patch or update bacula-director to the lastest 2.4.2
> bacula revision

 I'm not completely sure what you mean with "the latest 2.4.2 bacula
revision". There is only a single 2.4.2 release, not several revisions
to it ...  But the patch does look like it makes sense indeed.

 Thanks for the hint,

--- End Message ---

Reply to: