RE: opendkim 2.5.1 crash

From: Murray S. Kucherawy <msk_at_cloudmark.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 18:37:54 +0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: opendkim-users-bounce_at_lists.opendkim.org [mailto:opendkim-users-bounce_at_lists.opendkim.org] On Behalf Of ????? ????????
> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 10:04 AM
> To: Todd Lyons
> Cc: Andreas Schulze; opendkim-users_at_lists.opendkim.org
> Subject: opendkim 2.5.1 crash
>
> Hello,
>
> finally I found the core files. EnableCoreDumps was yes.
>
> gdb /usr/sbin/opendkim core.opendkim.2606
> <http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/bugs/>...
> Reading symbols from /usr/sbin/opendkim...done.
> [New LWP 5586]
> [New LWP 2606]
> [New LWP 2610]
> [New LWP 2611]
> [New LWP 2635]
> [New LWP 2812]
>
> warning: Could not load shared library symbols for linux-vdso.so.1.
> Do you need "set solib-search-path" or "set sysroot"?
> [Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled] Using host libthread_db
> library "/lib64/libthread_db.so.1".
> Core was generated by `opendkim -x /etc/mail/dkim/opendkim.conf'.
> Program terminated with signal 6, Aborted.
> #0 0x00007f34636f1905 in __GI_raise (sig=6)
> at ../nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c:64
> 64 return INLINE_SYSCALL (tgkill, 3, pid, selftid, sig);
> (gdb) bt
> #0 0x00007f34636f1905 in __GI_raise (sig=6)
> at ../nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c:64
> #1 0x00007f34636f2d7b in __GI_abort () at abort.c:91
> #2 0x00007f34636ea95e in __assert_fail_base (fmt=<optimized out>,
> assertion=0x44aca6 "sig != ((void *)0)", file=0x4498d7
> "opendkim.c",
> line=<optimized out>, function=<optimized out>) at assert.c:94
> #3 0x00007f34636eaa02 in __GI___assert_fail (
> assertion=assertion_at_entry=0x44aca6 "sig != ((void *)0)",
> file=file_at_entry=0x4498d7 "opendkim.c", line=line_at_entry=14092,
> function=function_at_entry=0x44e8ea "mlfi_eom") at assert.c:103
> #4 0x000000000041a3bc in mlfi_eom (ctx=0x20c3370) at opendkim.c:14092

I'll try to reproduce this live in a test environment, but it looks to me (based on the stack trace only) as if you can reproduce this by sending a message with a missing or unparseable From: field in the message. Is that right?
Received on Thu Apr 05 2012 - 18:38:04 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Mon Oct 29 2012 - 23:20:38 PST