Oct 5 17:01:09 localhost kernel: postscreen[387]: segfault at 0 ip
00007f78d9773cea sp 00007ffeb1cb0960 error 4 in libpostfix-util.so[7f78d9759000+29000] Oct 5 17:09:51 localhost kernel: postscreen[1310]: segfault at 0 ip 00007f372355dcea sp 00007fff7569b520 error 4 in libpostfix-util.so[7f3723543000+29000] Oct 5 17:18:20 localhost kernel: postscreen[11822]: segfault at 0 ip 00007f4a3e9bfcea sp 00007ffea70b09c0 error 4 in libpostfix-util.so[7f4a3e9a5000+29000] Oct 5 17:19:57 localhost kernel: postscreen[20595]: segfault at 0 ip 00007fe15ba10cea sp 00007ffc68250090 error 4 in libpostfix-util.so[7fe15b9f6000+29000] Oct 5 17:21:38 localhost kernel: postscreen[11930]: segfault at 0 ip 00007fdf1de1fcea sp 00007ffffdfc02c0 error 4 in libpostfix-util.so[7fdf1de05000+29000] Oct 5 17:22:14 localhost kernel: postscreen[16126]: segfault at 0 ip 00007f69bc4ddcea sp 00007ffeab170220 error 4 in libpostfix-util.so[7f69bc4c3000+29000] Oct 5 17:22:20 localhost kernel: postscreen[16138]: segfault at 0 ip 00007f7c9db76cea sp 00007ffc3e818b70 error 4 in libpostfix-util.so[7f7c9db5c000+29000] Oct 5 17:27:18 localhost kernel: postscreen[22685]: segfault at 0 ip 00007f027d5a8cea sp 00007ffc70a1b5f0 error 4 in libpostfix-util.so[7f027d58e000+29000] Oct 5 17:28:36 localhost kernel: postscreen[22746]: segfault at 0 ip 00007fd00d9f2cea sp 00007fffb5133e70 error 4 in libpostfix-util.so[7fd00d9d8000+29000] Oct 5 17:28:36 localhost kernel: postscreen[22752]: segfault at 0 ip 00007f15ed50ecea sp 00007fff054e0ea0 error 4 in libpostfix-util.so[7f15ed4f4000+29000] Oct 5 17:29:10 localhost kernel: postscreen[22764]: segfault at 0 ip 00007fbcf74becea sp 00007ffc1c2a6840 error 4 in libpostfix-util.so[7fbcf74a4000+29000] Oct 5 17:29:16 localhost kernel: postscreen[22767]: segfault at 0 ip 00007f2c802b1cea sp 00007ffd9c3d28f0 error 4 in libpostfix-util.so[7f2c80297000+29000] Oct 5 17:30:02 localhost kernel: postscreen[22771]: segfault at 0 ip 00007f388bc98cea sp 00007ffc372ca850 error 4 in libpostfix-util.so[7f388bc7e000+29000] both with postfix 3.5.6 and 3.5.7 on gentoo removed: postscreen_dnsbl_reply_map = texthash:/etc/postfix/postscreen_dnsbl_reply_map postscreen_dnsbl_sites = APIKEY.combined.mail.abusix.zone that removed the seqfaults kernel is 5.4.66, dont know if thats related to my problem, is other seen that problem ? |
Benny Pedersen:
> Oct 5 17:01:09 localhost kernel: postscreen[387]: segfault at 0 ip > 00007f78d9773cea sp 00007ffeb1cb0960 error 4 in > libpostfix-util.so[7f78d9759000+29000] > Oct 5 17:09:51 localhost kernel: postscreen[1310]: segfault at 0 ip > 00007f372355dcea sp 00007fff7569b520 error 4 in > libpostfix-util.so[7f3723543000+29000] > Oct 5 17:18:20 localhost kernel: postscreen[11822]: segfault at 0 ip > 00007f4a3e9bfcea sp 00007ffea70b09c0 error 4 in > libpostfix-util.so[7f4a3e9a5000+29000] > Oct 5 17:19:57 localhost kernel: postscreen[20595]: segfault at 0 ip > 00007fe15ba10cea sp 00007ffc68250090 error 4 in > libpostfix-util.so[7fe15b9f6000+29000] > Oct 5 17:21:38 localhost kernel: postscreen[11930]: segfault at 0 ip > 00007fdf1de1fcea sp 00007ffffdfc02c0 error 4 in > libpostfix-util.so[7fdf1de05000+29000] > Oct 5 17:22:14 localhost kernel: postscreen[16126]: segfault at 0 ip > 00007f69bc4ddcea sp 00007ffeab170220 error 4 in > libpostfix-util.so[7f69bc4c3000+29000] > Oct 5 17:22:20 localhost kernel: postscreen[16138]: segfault at 0 ip > 00007f7c9db76cea sp 00007ffc3e818b70 error 4 in > libpostfix-util.so[7f7c9db5c000+29000] > Oct 5 17:27:18 localhost kernel: postscreen[22685]: segfault at 0 ip > 00007f027d5a8cea sp 00007ffc70a1b5f0 error 4 in > libpostfix-util.so[7f027d58e000+29000] > Oct 5 17:28:36 localhost kernel: postscreen[22746]: segfault at 0 ip > 00007fd00d9f2cea sp 00007fffb5133e70 error 4 in > libpostfix-util.so[7fd00d9d8000+29000] > Oct 5 17:28:36 localhost kernel: postscreen[22752]: segfault at 0 ip > 00007f15ed50ecea sp 00007fff054e0ea0 error 4 in > libpostfix-util.so[7f15ed4f4000+29000] > Oct 5 17:29:10 localhost kernel: postscreen[22764]: segfault at 0 ip > 00007fbcf74becea sp 00007ffc1c2a6840 error 4 in > libpostfix-util.so[7fbcf74a4000+29000] > Oct 5 17:29:16 localhost kernel: postscreen[22767]: segfault at 0 ip > 00007f2c802b1cea sp 00007ffd9c3d28f0 error 4 in > libpostfix-util.so[7f2c80297000+29000] > Oct 5 17:30:02 localhost kernel: postscreen[22771]: segfault at 0 ip > 00007f388bc98cea sp 00007ffc372ca850 error 4 in > libpostfix-util.so[7f388bc7e000+29000] > > both with postfix 3.5.6 and 3.5.7 on gentoo > > removed: > > postscreen_dnsbl_reply_map = > texthash:/etc/postfix/postscreen_dnsbl_reply_map > postscreen_dnsbl_sites = APIKEY.combined.mail.abusix.zone > > that removed the seqfaults > > kernel is 5.4.66, dont know if thats related to my problem, is other > seen that problem ? Support for postscreen_dnsbl_* not changed in years. You can try to attack a debugger as in http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html, to find out what function(s) are active at the time. Wietse |
On 05/10/2020 22:19, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Benny Pedersen: >> Oct 5 17:01:09 localhost kernel: postscreen[387]: segfault at 0 ip >> 00007f78d9773cea sp 00007ffeb1cb0960 error 4 in >> libpostfix-util.so[7f78d9759000+29000] >> Oct 5 17:09:51 localhost kernel: postscreen[1310]: segfault at 0 ip >> 00007f372355dcea sp 00007fff7569b520 error 4 in >> libpostfix-util.so[7f3723543000+29000] >> Oct 5 17:18:20 localhost kernel: postscreen[11822]: segfault at 0 ip >> 00007f4a3e9bfcea sp 00007ffea70b09c0 error 4 in >> libpostfix-util.so[7f4a3e9a5000+29000] >> Oct 5 17:19:57 localhost kernel: postscreen[20595]: segfault at 0 ip >> 00007fe15ba10cea sp 00007ffc68250090 error 4 in >> libpostfix-util.so[7fe15b9f6000+29000] >> Oct 5 17:21:38 localhost kernel: postscreen[11930]: segfault at 0 ip >> 00007fdf1de1fcea sp 00007ffffdfc02c0 error 4 in >> libpostfix-util.so[7fdf1de05000+29000] >> Oct 5 17:22:14 localhost kernel: postscreen[16126]: segfault at 0 ip >> 00007f69bc4ddcea sp 00007ffeab170220 error 4 in >> libpostfix-util.so[7f69bc4c3000+29000] >> Oct 5 17:22:20 localhost kernel: postscreen[16138]: segfault at 0 ip >> 00007f7c9db76cea sp 00007ffc3e818b70 error 4 in >> libpostfix-util.so[7f7c9db5c000+29000] >> Oct 5 17:27:18 localhost kernel: postscreen[22685]: segfault at 0 ip >> 00007f027d5a8cea sp 00007ffc70a1b5f0 error 4 in >> libpostfix-util.so[7f027d58e000+29000] >> Oct 5 17:28:36 localhost kernel: postscreen[22746]: segfault at 0 ip >> 00007fd00d9f2cea sp 00007fffb5133e70 error 4 in >> libpostfix-util.so[7fd00d9d8000+29000] >> Oct 5 17:28:36 localhost kernel: postscreen[22752]: segfault at 0 ip >> 00007f15ed50ecea sp 00007fff054e0ea0 error 4 in >> libpostfix-util.so[7f15ed4f4000+29000] >> Oct 5 17:29:10 localhost kernel: postscreen[22764]: segfault at 0 ip >> 00007fbcf74becea sp 00007ffc1c2a6840 error 4 in >> libpostfix-util.so[7fbcf74a4000+29000] >> Oct 5 17:29:16 localhost kernel: postscreen[22767]: segfault at 0 ip >> 00007f2c802b1cea sp 00007ffd9c3d28f0 error 4 in >> libpostfix-util.so[7f2c80297000+29000] >> Oct 5 17:30:02 localhost kernel: postscreen[22771]: segfault at 0 ip >> 00007f388bc98cea sp 00007ffc372ca850 error 4 in >> libpostfix-util.so[7f388bc7e000+29000] >> >> both with postfix 3.5.6 and 3.5.7 on gentoo >> >> removed: >> >> postscreen_dnsbl_reply_map = >> texthash:/etc/postfix/postscreen_dnsbl_reply_map >> postscreen_dnsbl_sites = APIKEY.combined.mail.abusix.zone >> >> that removed the seqfaults >> >> kernel is 5.4.66, dont know if thats related to my problem, is other >> seen that problem ? > Support for postscreen_dnsbl_* not changed in years. You can try > to attack a debugger as in http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html, > to find out what function(s) are active at the time. > > Wietse Hi maybe just a wild guess... but looking at the code in dict_thash.c is this guaranteed to return something not null? dict = dict_open3(DICT_TYPE_HT, path, open_flags, dict_flags); If it ever returns null, it would likely produce a segfault later on. John |
John Fawcett:
> >> Oct 5 17:30:02 localhost kernel: postscreen[22771]: segfault at 0 ip > >> 00007f388bc98cea sp 00007ffc372ca850 error 4 in > >> libpostfix-util.so[7f388bc7e000+29000] > >> > >> both with postfix 3.5.6 and 3.5.7 on gentoo > >> > >> removed: > >> > >> postscreen_dnsbl_reply_map = > >> texthash:/etc/postfix/postscreen_dnsbl_reply_map > >> postscreen_dnsbl_sites = APIKEY.combined.mail.abusix.zone > >> > >> that removed the seqfaults > >> > >> kernel is 5.4.66, dont know if thats related to my problem, is other > >> seen that problem ? > > Support for postscreen_dnsbl_* not changed in years. You can try > > to attack a debugger as in http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html, > > to find out what function(s) are active at the time. > > > > Wietse > > Hi > > maybe just a wild guess... but looking at the code in dict_thash.c is > this guaranteed to return something not null? > > ??????? dict = dict_open3(DICT_TYPE_HT, path, open_flags, dict_flags); > > If it ever returns null, it would likely produce a segfault later on. dict_open never returns null. In case of error, a dictionary terminates with a fatal error, or it returns a "surrogate" dictionary that returns errors for all requests. Wietse |
In reply to this post by John Fawcett
On 05/10/2020 23:18, John Fawcett wrote:
> On 05/10/2020 22:19, Wietse Venema wrote: >> Benny Pedersen: >>> Oct 5 17:01:09 localhost kernel: postscreen[387]: segfault at 0 ip >>> 00007f78d9773cea sp 00007ffeb1cb0960 error 4 in >>> libpostfix-util.so[7f78d9759000+29000] >>> Oct 5 17:09:51 localhost kernel: postscreen[1310]: segfault at 0 ip >>> 00007f372355dcea sp 00007fff7569b520 error 4 in >>> libpostfix-util.so[7f3723543000+29000] >>> Oct 5 17:18:20 localhost kernel: postscreen[11822]: segfault at 0 ip >>> 00007f4a3e9bfcea sp 00007ffea70b09c0 error 4 in >>> libpostfix-util.so[7f4a3e9a5000+29000] >>> Oct 5 17:19:57 localhost kernel: postscreen[20595]: segfault at 0 ip >>> 00007fe15ba10cea sp 00007ffc68250090 error 4 in >>> libpostfix-util.so[7fe15b9f6000+29000] >>> Oct 5 17:21:38 localhost kernel: postscreen[11930]: segfault at 0 ip >>> 00007fdf1de1fcea sp 00007ffffdfc02c0 error 4 in >>> libpostfix-util.so[7fdf1de05000+29000] >>> Oct 5 17:22:14 localhost kernel: postscreen[16126]: segfault at 0 ip >>> 00007f69bc4ddcea sp 00007ffeab170220 error 4 in >>> libpostfix-util.so[7f69bc4c3000+29000] >>> Oct 5 17:22:20 localhost kernel: postscreen[16138]: segfault at 0 ip >>> 00007f7c9db76cea sp 00007ffc3e818b70 error 4 in >>> libpostfix-util.so[7f7c9db5c000+29000] >>> Oct 5 17:27:18 localhost kernel: postscreen[22685]: segfault at 0 ip >>> 00007f027d5a8cea sp 00007ffc70a1b5f0 error 4 in >>> libpostfix-util.so[7f027d58e000+29000] >>> Oct 5 17:28:36 localhost kernel: postscreen[22746]: segfault at 0 ip >>> 00007fd00d9f2cea sp 00007fffb5133e70 error 4 in >>> libpostfix-util.so[7fd00d9d8000+29000] >>> Oct 5 17:28:36 localhost kernel: postscreen[22752]: segfault at 0 ip >>> 00007f15ed50ecea sp 00007fff054e0ea0 error 4 in >>> libpostfix-util.so[7f15ed4f4000+29000] >>> Oct 5 17:29:10 localhost kernel: postscreen[22764]: segfault at 0 ip >>> 00007fbcf74becea sp 00007ffc1c2a6840 error 4 in >>> libpostfix-util.so[7fbcf74a4000+29000] >>> Oct 5 17:29:16 localhost kernel: postscreen[22767]: segfault at 0 ip >>> 00007f2c802b1cea sp 00007ffd9c3d28f0 error 4 in >>> libpostfix-util.so[7f2c80297000+29000] >>> Oct 5 17:30:02 localhost kernel: postscreen[22771]: segfault at 0 ip >>> 00007f388bc98cea sp 00007ffc372ca850 error 4 in >>> libpostfix-util.so[7f388bc7e000+29000] >>> >>> both with postfix 3.5.6 and 3.5.7 on gentoo >>> >>> removed: >>> >>> postscreen_dnsbl_reply_map = >>> texthash:/etc/postfix/postscreen_dnsbl_reply_map >>> postscreen_dnsbl_sites = APIKEY.combined.mail.abusix.zone >>> >>> that removed the seqfaults >>> >>> kernel is 5.4.66, dont know if thats related to my problem, is other >>> seen that problem ? >> Support for postscreen_dnsbl_* not changed in years. You can try >> to attack a debugger as in http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html, >> to find out what function(s) are active at the time. >> >> Wietse > Hi > > maybe just a wild guess... but looking at the code in dict_thash.c is > this guaranteed to return something not null? > > dict = dict_open3(DICT_TYPE_HT, path, open_flags, dict_flags); > > If it ever returns null, it would likely produce a segfault later on. > > John > with all the function pointers in the returned dict struct also not null. I'm adding this because I think it does always return something not null, but I'm not sure that the function pointers are always not null. There's a condition that sometimes does not define update and delete in dict_surrogate.c if (open_flags & O_RDWR) { dp->dict.update = dict_surrogate_update; dp->dict.delete = dict_surrogate_delete; } Not sure if that helps, but just an idea. John John |
John Fawcett:
> Actually to be more precise: is it guaranteed to return not null and > with all the function pointers in the returned dict struct also not > null. I'm adding this because I think it does always return something > not null, but I'm not sure that the function pointers are always not > null. There's a condition that sometimes does not define update and > delete in dict_surrogate.c > > ?? if (open_flags & O_RDWR) { > ??????? dp->dict.update = dict_surrogate_update; > ??????? dp->dict.delete = dict_surrogate_delete; > ??? } > > Not sure if that helps, but just an idea. Those function pointer are initialized by dict_alloc() as pointers to function that say "you cannot do this". Wietse |
On 06/10/2020 00:05, Wietse Venema wrote:
> John Fawcett: >> Actually to be more precise: is it guaranteed to return not null and >> with all the function pointers in the returned dict struct also not >> null. I'm adding this because I think it does always return something >> not null, but I'm not sure that the function pointers are always not >> null. There's a condition that sometimes does not define update and >> delete in dict_surrogate.c >> >> ?? if (open_flags & O_RDWR) { >> ??????? dp->dict.update = dict_surrogate_update; >> ??????? dp->dict.delete = dict_surrogate_delete; >> ??? } >> >> Not sure if that helps, but just an idea. > Those function pointer are initialized by dict_alloc() as pointers > to function that say "you cannot do this". > > Wietse It all looks safe for code paths that pass through dict_surrogate but also for cases that don't. Not a problem in text hash tables then. Waiting to see what the core dump throws up. John |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |