Bug 202394 - Intermittent named crash with pthread_mutex_destroy
Intermittent named crash with pthread_mutex_destroy
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 202393
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4
Classification: Red Hat
Component: bind (Show other bugs)
4.4
x86_64 Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Martin Stransky
Ben Levenson
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2006-08-14 00:14 EDT by James Gardiner
Modified: 2007-11-16 20:14 EST (History)
0 users

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2006-08-14 04:34:38 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description James Gardiner 2006-08-14 00:14:35 EDT
Description of problem:

Very occasionally (particularly under load) named will crash with one ofthe 
following (or similar)
errors:

RUNTIME_CHECK(((pthread_mutex_destroy(((&adb->mplock))) == 0
) ? 0 : 34) == 0) failed
OR 
14:37:45.515 RUNTIME_CHECK(((pthread_mutex_destroy(((&rbtdb->node_locks[i
].lock))) == 0) ? 0 : 34) == 0) failed

I don't believe this is related to memory constraints, since the busiest server 
never exceeds a resident footprint of 250MB, whereas these servers have 2GB RAM 
and  are exclusively for DNS.



Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
bind-9.3.2-2_EL4
Kernel 2.6.9-34.0.2.ELsmp x86_64

How reproducible:
Happened about four times in eight months (so not very :< )

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Run bind on an SMP x86_64 box.
2. ?

Additional info:
This is essentially the same issue as bug 173961, which was closed as it claims 
a fix has been implemeneted in back-ports from Bind 9.2.6 to 9.2.4, but we are 
running 9.3.2.
Comment 1 James Gardiner 2006-08-14 00:23:27 EDT
Sorry - duplicated this bug from 202393 since bugzilla page gave me an error 
about empty product name - I would save it as duplicate but apparently I 
am 'NOT ALLOWED'? we can close this and work with 202393
Comment 2 Martin Stransky 2006-08-14 04:34:38 EDT

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 202393 ***

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.