Re: assertion failed: ipcache.cc:995: "tmpbuf" in 3.HEAD-CVS

Bernhard Schmidt wrote:
> Amos Jeffries schrieb:
>
>> Bernhard:
>> Can you get a cache.log trace of section 14 please?
>
> debug_options 14,9 gives:
>
> 2008/01/10 01:12:59.532| ipcacheParse: edge.jobthread.com CNAME
> static-vip.srv.jobthread.com (checking destination: 0x832e238).
> 2008/01/10 01:12:59.532| ipcache_gethostbyname:
> 'static-vip.srv.jobthread.com', flags=0
> 2008/01/10 01:12:59.532| ipcacheParse: CNAME
> static-vip.srv.jobthread.com has no IPs! Recursing.
> 2008/01/10 01:12:59.532| ipcache_nbgethostbyname: Name
> 'static-vip.srv.jobthread.com'.
> 2008/01/10 01:12:59.532| ipcache_nbgethostbyname: MISS for
> 'static-vip.srv.jobthread.com'
> 2008/01/10 01:12:59.550| ipcacheParse: static-vip.srv.jobthread.com #0
> 69.28.241.125
> 2008/01/10 01:12:59.550| ipcacheHandleCnameRecurse: Handling basic
> A/AAAA response.
> 2008/01/10 01:12:59.550| ipcacheHandleCnameRecurse: Handling CNAME
> recursion. CBDATA('0')='edge.jobthread.com' -> 0x832e238
> 2008/01/10 01:12:59.550| ipcacheHandleCnameRecurse: Merge IP Lists for
> edge.jobthread.com (0+1)
> 2008/01/10 01:12:59.550| ipcacheMergeIPLists: Merge 0+1 into 1 unique IPs.
> 2008/01/10 01:12:59.550| ipcacheMergeIPLists: #0 69.28.241.125
> 2008/01/10 01:12:59.550| ipcache.cc(994) ipcacheHandleCnameRecurse:
> in=0, out=0x85933c8
> 2008/01/10 01:12:59.550| assertion failed: ipcache.cc:995: "tmpbuf"
>
>> On a wacky side-thought: does changing the assert to (tmpbuf != NULL)
>> fix it for you?
>
> No. Removing the assert helps though, log continues like this
>
> 2008/01/10 01:16:45.871| connecting to: 69.28.241.125:80
>
> I just did a few testruns with the removed assert and could not find any
> misbehaviour.
>
> Bernhard

Doh! thanks. I think I see the problem, its should be checking tmpbuf is
NULL when no records are present, non-NULL when they are.
  The assert was there to stop the safe free dying nastily. If it's
working for you better without great. I'll commit the fix to HEAD shortly.

BTW Henrik: You see the case for CNAMEs now? That lookup is a pretty
clear example.

Amos

-- 
Please use Squid 2.6STABLE17 or 3.0STABLE1.
There are serious security advisories out on all earlier releases.