On Wed, 2009-03-04 at 19:36 +0200, Török Edwin wrote:
> As far as I understand the crash occurs when reloading the signatures
> (actually when freeing old signatures),
> but only if clamd had some load before (i.e. it doesn't crash just by
> reloading the signatures on a fresh clamd).
> That makes
Török Edwin wrote:
> On 2009-03-04 19:44, Dennis Peterson wrote:
>> Török Edwin wrote:
>>
>>> On 2009-03-04 19:28, Dennis Peterson wrote:
>>>
>>
This can be tested by having some adventurous affected user run with only
third
party signatures - if it is that which is at f
On 2009-03-04 19:44, Dennis Peterson wrote:
> Török Edwin wrote:
>
>> On 2009-03-04 19:28, Dennis Peterson wrote:
>>
>
>
>>> This can be tested by having some adventurous affected user run with only
>>> third
>>> party signatures - if it is that which is at fault then clamd will contin
Török Edwin wrote:
> On 2009-03-04 19:28, Dennis Peterson wrote:
>>
>> This can be tested by having some adventurous affected user run with only
>> third
>> party signatures - if it is that which is at fault then clamd will continue
>> to
>> crash. Since this happens only while loading signatu
On 2009-03-04 19:28, Dennis Peterson wrote:
> Török Edwin wrote:
>
>> On 2009-03-04 17:49, Jorge Valdes wrote:
>>
>>> Because I run clamd via daemontools, whenever clamd crashes, its brought
>>> back to life within a few seconds and things hum along fine until the
>>> next crash, which is i
Török Edwin wrote:
> On 2009-03-04 17:49, Jorge Valdes wrote:
>> Because I run clamd via daemontools, whenever clamd crashes, its brought
>> back to life within a few seconds and things hum along fine until the
>> next crash, which is in my case, very unpredictable since I have gone
>> days without
On 2009-03-04 17:49, Jorge Valdes wrote:
> Because I run clamd via daemontools, whenever clamd crashes, its brought
> back to life within a few seconds and things hum along fine until the
> next crash, which is in my case, very unpredictable since I have gone
> days without a crash, and suddenly ha
