Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 7757
bind-8.2.2_P3-0.5.2 is instable!
Last modified: 2008-05-01 11:37:53 EDT
Hi, It seems that bind-8.2.2_P3-0.5.2 is very unstable. I was able to run my server for weeks and now I need to shutdown named at least once a day. As this behaviour will also influence sendmail it is becoming rather annoying and a real pain in the butt. Basically it makes a mission critical machine rather unreliable. Some sources already indicated that the P3 version of bind is NOT to be used but one should use P5 as indicated on: http://www.isc.org/products/BIND/ Hugo.
Found some more about the issue. It seems named is not started by default in runlevel 3 anymore. It used to do before the security update. But apparantly the update broke this. I suggest you create a fix for this and make sure you don't change the runlevel settings of a package while you upgrade.
The runlevels change is a security feature, not a bug. We now default to turning everything off before it's configured. As for stability, I've been running a test box ever since you originally reported the bug, and haven't had to restart named at all - do you get anything in syslog when your named crashes? As for using 8.2.2P5 instead of P3, the page you quoted says you should update to at least 8.2.2P3 (P5 does NOT have any new security fixes), and if you're using a vendor-provided 8.2.2P3, you should confirm the named-xfer bug has been patched. We have patched it in 8.2.2P3-0.*, so there's no reason to go 8.2.2P5.
It is not only unstable, but running rpm -K --nopgp also reports size md5 GPG NOT OK This also occurs for a number of RH 5.2 upgrade packages, namely: (from http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/rh52-errata-general.html) bind-8.2.2_P3-0.5.2.i386.rpm bind-devel-8.2.2_P3-0.5.2.i386.rpm bind-utils-8.2.2_P3-0.5.2.i386.rpm groff-1.15-0.5.2.i386.rpm groff-gxditview-1.15-0.5.2.i386.rpm libtiff-3.5.4-0.5.2.i386.rpm libtiff-devel-3.5.4-0.5.2.i386.rpm lpr-0.48-0.5.2.i386.rpm nfs-server-2.2beta47-1.i386.rpm sharutils-4.2.1-1.5.2.i386.rpm sysklogd-1.3.31-1.5.i386.rpm sysklogd-1.3.31-14.i386.rpm wu-ftpd-2.6.0-0.5.x.i386.rpm wu-ftpd-2.6.0-1.i386.rpm ypserv-1.3.9-0.5.2.i386.rpm All of these RPMs give the "size md5 GPG NOT OK" message, and according to documentation I read on rpm, people should not install such RPMs. What I find curious is what such packages are doing in the download directory. Why would this condition not be verified before making RPMs available for download?