improper handling of dlpened's C++/atexit() code?

2006-05-11 Thread m m
I am writing in regard to PR at http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=bin%2F59552 . I am experiencing behavior on 6.1-PRERELEASE FreeBSD 6.1-PRERELEASE #11: Sun Mar 26 00:03:52 EST 2006 which looks a lot like something that would be caused by this PR. This happens when apache-1.3 processes t

Re: improper handling of dlpened's C++/atexit() code?

2006-05-11 Thread m m
On 5/11/06, Michael Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: /var/log/messages.0.bz2:Apr 26 00:00:04 mail kernel: pid 87211 (httpd), uid 80: exited on signal 6 /var/log/messages.0.bz2:Apr 26 00:00:04 mail kernel: pid 87208 (httpd), uid 80: exited on signal 6 /var/log/messages.0.bz2:Apr 26 00:00:04 mail

Re: conf/97166

2006-05-12 Thread m m
Hey lists, Two or three days before the CVS tree has been tagged for FreeBSD 6.1-RELEASE, I've committed a broken version of the jail rc.d script. The symptoms are: - an ifconfig error message if you don't define a jail_interface and have at least one jail configured, this one is harmless. - a

Re: improper handling of dlpened's C++/atexit() code?

2006-05-15 Thread m m
You'll need to build ld-elf.so.1 and libc.so.6 to get a sensible backtrace. Can you please point us to a reference on how to do this? I rebuilt the rtld-elf and libc libraries with CFLAGS=-g3 in /etc/make.conf, however the stack trace looks basically the same (missing functions and no line numb

Re: improper handling of dlpened's C++/atexit() code?

2006-05-15 Thread m m
On 5/14/06, Alexander Kabaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Thu, 11 May 2006 20:57:20 -0400 "m m" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am writing in regard to PR at > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=bin%2F59552 . I am > experiencing behavior on 6.1-PREREL

Re: improper handling of dlpened's C++/atexit() code?

2006-05-21 Thread m m
Any hints on this available? Suggestions, more info, anything else? On 5/15/06, m m <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 5/14/06, Alexander Kabaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 11 May 2006 20:57:20 -0400 > "m m" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >