At 09 Apr 2003 10:53:13 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > Op wo 09-04-2003, om 01:55 schreef GOTO Masanori: > > > Since I did not modify any C code in this package at the time the bug > > > appeared, the problem must lie somewhere else. Running nbd-server in > > > strace shows that it accept()s the client's call, then fork()s, as it > > > should. Next, when the parent does a close() of the socket acquired with > > > accept(), a FIN packet is sent to the client, closing the connection, > > > although the child process still has the socket open. When it tries to > > > send() something through that socket, it of course gets a SIGPIPE. > > > > > > Attached, the two files that form the output of > > > > > > strace -ff -o nbd-server-trace nbd-server 1234 /export/m68k/exp-bl-dev > > > > Why did you assign this bug to libc6 with grave severity? > > Sorry, I indeed forgot to lower the severity. It's a cloned bug that is > indeed a valid grave bug for nbd, but not for libc6. Changed that with > this message.
OK, thanks :) > If I'm not the only one with this problem, it might be a higher severity > than normal, though; I'll leave that up to you. > > > What is the > > problem? Which version was it worked? > > The differences between nbd-server 1:2.3-4 and 1:2.3-6 is only > differences of packaging; I converted to po-debconf, and added some > translations from ddtp.d.o. There were no modifications to the C source. > > However, 1:2.3-4 works, while 1:2.3-6 doesn't. This leads me to believe > it's a problem with either libc6, binutils, or gcc. I assigned the bug > to libc6 because that seemed the most valid candidate to me; however, it > might be that I'm misguided, and that the bug is in fact not libc6's > fault. To be sure, I ran nbd-server from within gdb, and checked what > happened; it looked as if the socket for the child process was closed > when the parent closed it, which obviously is incorrect. Umm, I recommend you that this kind of bug post to mailing lists in first... In addition, is this close()/fork() issue really the root of the problem? Could you provide me why close()/fork() is the problem? I have never used nbd, so nbd expert (you) are appropriate to track this bug. > IIRC, 1:2.3-4 was compiled using libc6 2.3.1-1, because I remember > waiting for it to be on my system. 1:2.3-6 has been compiled using an > up-to-date sid system, last week. libc6 is updated between 2.3.1-1 and 2.3.1-16, so network function may be changed. libc6-dev 2.3.1-1 uses kernel 2.4.19 headers, but 2.3.1-16 uses 2.4.20 headers (on i386). > > If I can not get valid > > information, I reassign this bug back to package nbd. > > What extra information do you want me to provide? nbd-* pacakges touch kernel modules, so is kernel version same between 2.3-4 and 2.3-6? BTW, original bug submitter says: > Apr 3 12:45:14 server nbd_server[15928]: Could not find size of exported > block device: Inappropriate ioctl for device This is in nbd-server.c::size_autodetect(). Repeatedly is this issue related to close()/fork()? Regards, -- gotom
