Christophe Kalt via Postfix-users wrote in
:
|no crash over the past day, so something must indeed be off with the
|packages, disappointing, oh well. On the bright side, I no longer depend on
|these getting updated.
There were often problems with the -s they use. Especially before
they starte
no crash over the past day, so something must indeed be off with the
packages, disappointing, oh well. On the bright side, I no longer depend on
these getting updated.
Thanks Wietse & Viktor.
On Sun, Feb 4, 2024 at 10:21 PM Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users <
postfix-users@postfix.org> wrote:
>
On Sun, Feb 04, 2024 at 08:12:56PM -0500, Christophe Kalt via Postfix-users
wrote:
> These are the alpine packages themselves, but I'm not familiar with how
> they're built so I can't rule out a bad build. It's also possible that I
> didn't let the 3.8.3 version run long enough for it to crash as
These are the alpine packages themselves, but I'm not familiar with how
they're built so I can't rule out a bad build. It's also possible that I
didn't let the 3.8.3 version run long enough for it to crash as it happens
irregularly.
Anyways, spent some time building 3.8.5 from source and am now wa
On Sun, Feb 04, 2024 at 05:06:22PM -0500, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users
wrote:
> > - 3.8.4 on alpine 3.19.0
> > - 3.8.5 on alpine 3.19.1
> >
> > but apparently not for 3.8.3 on alpine 3.18.3
>
> There's perhaps an issue in the OpenSSL or other library dependencies.
> For further info we'd n
On Sun, Feb 04, 2024 at 01:37:18PM -0500, Christophe Kalt via Postfix-users
wrote:
> /usr/libexec/postfix/postscreen pid 93 killed by signal 11
>
> These connections are from an SMTP probe that goes EHLO STARTTLS EHLO QUIT
>
> I've not run postscreen previously, so I cannot tell whether this is
Christophe Kalt via Postfix-users:
> Hi,
>
> I'm seeing regular postscreen segfaults on a test server with minimal
> traffic. The patterns I noticed from the logs is that it seems to happen
> when the server gets 2 ~simultaneous connections from the same host:
>
> 2024-02-04T14:33:31.876390 info
Hi,
I'm seeing regular postscreen segfaults on a test server with minimal
traffic. The patterns I noticed from the logs is that it seems to happen
when the server gets 2 ~simultaneous connections from the same host:
2024-02-04T14:33:31.876390 info postfix starting the Postfix mail system
2024-02-
* Vernon A. Fort :
> Thanks Wietse - installed and running.
Same here.
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
Campus Benjamin Franklin
Hindenburgdamm 30 | D-12203 Berlin
Tel. +49 30 450 570 155 | Fax: +49 30 450 570 962
ralf.h
On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 09:21 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Wietse Venema:
> > The following patch for postfix-2.8-20100923 eliminates two race
> > conditions. Both are triggered when a client makes N > 1 simultaneous
> > connections, and then disconnects M < N connections before postscreen
> > has d
On 10/7/2010 9:21 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Wietse Venema:
>> The following patch for postfix-2.8-20100923 eliminates two race
>> conditions. Both are triggered when a client makes N > 1 simultaneous
>> connections, and then disconnects M < N connections before postscreen
>> has delivered the DNSB
Wietse Venema:
> The following patch for postfix-2.8-20100923 eliminates two race
> conditions. Both are triggered when a client makes N > 1 simultaneous
> connections, and then disconnects M < N connections before postscreen
> has delivered the DNSBL score to the "pseudo" threads for those M
> con
Victor wrote:
> It looks like the ps_early_dnsbl_event() callback is called here with
> a client context that has been deallocated (client disconnected, ...
> before all the DNS blacklist lookups completed). The callback should
> be cancelled when the client state is deleted.
>
> The "dnsbl_score_
* Vernon A. Fort :
> > Were you seeing the signal 11 errors before turning on verbose logging?
> >
> > Wietse
>
> yes, as noted with my previous post. just not as frequent, say one
> every 4-5 days.
I also have a few:
Sep 24 13:56:04 mail postfix/master[2823]: warning: process
/usr/libexe
Vernon A. Fort:
> > > This is enough. You are running "postscreen -v", you probably should
> > > not be running it with verbose logging, but that of course is no reason
> > > why it should crash, so...
> > >
> > > It looks like the ps_early_dnsbl_event() callback is called here with
> > > a client
On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 14:40 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Victor Duchovni:
> > On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 12:51:16PM -0500, Vernon A. Fort wrote:
> >
> > > Loaded symbols for /lib/libnss_files.so.2
> > > Core was generated by `postscreen -l -n smtp -t inet -u -s 2 -v'.
> > > Program terminated with s
On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 14:40 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Victor Duchovni:
> > On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 12:51:16PM -0500, Vernon A. Fort wrote:
> I'll take it from here.
>
> Wietse
Also, I forgot to mention this server is sitting BEHIND a checkpoint
firewall. Not sure if that makes any diff
On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 14:32 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Vernon A. Fort:
> > I recompiled postfix: unstripped and with -ggdb. I ran gdb postscreen
> > core file - new binary but old core file. May be still useful but will
> > have to wait on another segfault.
> >
> > attached is the backtrace
Victor Duchovni:
> On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 12:51:16PM -0500, Vernon A. Fort wrote:
>
> > Loaded symbols for /lib/libnss_files.so.2
> > Core was generated by `postscreen -l -n smtp -t inet -u -s 2 -v'.
> > Program terminated with signal 11, Segmentation fault.
> > ...
> > #3 0x0805f827 in msg_info
Vernon A. Fort:
> I recompiled postfix: unstripped and with -ggdb. I ran gdb postscreen
> core file - new binary but old core file. May be still useful but will
> have to wait on another segfault.
>
> attached is the backtrace using new binary with old core file.
Assuming that the generated pr
On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 14:24 -0400, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 12:51:16PM -0500, Vernon A. Fort wrote:
>
> This is enough. You are running "postscreen -v", you probably should
> not be running it with verbose logging, but that of course is no reason
> why it should crash, so.
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 12:51:16PM -0500, Vernon A. Fort wrote:
> Loaded symbols for /lib/libnss_files.so.2
> Core was generated by `postscreen -l -n smtp -t inet -u -s 2 -v'.
> Program terminated with signal 11, Segmentation fault.
> ...
> #3 0x0805f827 in msg_info (fmt=0x80683bb "%s: notify %s:
On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 13:37 -0400, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 12:28:45PM -0500, Vernon A. Fort wrote:
>
> > > We don't yet need the whole core file, just run:
> > >
> > > gdb /usr/sbin/postscreen /path/to/core
> > > ... copious output ...
> > > gdb) bt
> > >
> > > The
On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 13:37 -0400, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 12:28:45PM -0500, Vernon A. Fort wrote:
>
> > > We don't yet need the whole core file, just run:
> > >
> > > gdb /usr/sbin/postscreen /path/to/core
> > > ... copious output ...
> > > gdb) bt
> > >
> > > The
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 12:35:38PM -0500, Vernon A. Fort wrote:
> > This is my first time working with core and backtrace files - bear with
> > me.
> >
> > Vernon
>
> I'm thinking this is no good - do we need debugging symbols? this is
> from gdb /usr/lib/postfix/postscreen "corefile".
>
> Read
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 12:28:45PM -0500, Vernon A. Fort wrote:
> > We don't yet need the whole core file, just run:
> >
> > gdb /usr/sbin/postscreen /path/to/core
> > ... copious output ...
> > gdb) bt
> >
> > The "bt" command generates a back-trace (stack trace), that should show
>
On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 12:28 -0500, Vernon A. Fort wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 13:22 -0400, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 12:15:36PM -0500, Vernon A. Fort wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 17:30 -0400, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 03:43:44PM -0
On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 13:22 -0400, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 12:15:36PM -0500, Vernon A. Fort wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 17:30 -0400, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 03:43:44PM -0500, Vernon A. Fort wrote:
> > >
> > > > I've noticed this:
> > >
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 12:15:36PM -0500, Vernon A. Fort wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 17:30 -0400, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 03:43:44PM -0500, Vernon A. Fort wrote:
> >
> > > I've noticed this:
> > >
> > > mail.log.1:Oct 3 03:32:43 ns postfix/master[3672]: warning:
>
On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 17:30 -0400, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 03:43:44PM -0500, Vernon A. Fort wrote:
>
> > I've noticed this:
> >
> > mail.log.1:Oct 3 03:32:43 ns postfix/master[3672]: warning:
> > process //usr/lib/postfix/postscreen pid 19122 killed by signal 11
> >
> >
On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 17:30 -0400, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 03:43:44PM -0500, Vernon A. Fort wrote:
>
> Enable "core" file generation and report a backtrace.
>
I was just reading up on this. I will report once it happens.
Vernon
On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 03:43:44PM -0500, Vernon A. Fort wrote:
> I've noticed this:
>
> mail.log.1:Oct 3 03:32:43 ns postfix/master[3672]: warning:
> process //usr/lib/postfix/postscreen pid 19122 killed by signal 11
>
> and
>
> [457795.641083] postscreen[19122]: segfault at 1f ip 0804c463 sp
I've noticed this:
mail.log.1:Oct 3 03:32:43 ns postfix/master[3672]: warning:
process //usr/lib/postfix/postscreen pid 19122 killed by signal 11
and
[457795.641083] postscreen[19122]: segfault at 1f ip 0804c463 sp
bfcf5e50 error 4 in postscreen[8048000+29000]
system info:
mail_version = 2.8
33 matches
Mail list logo
