Indexer error after upgrade to 2.3.11.3 [trial patch]
John Fawcett
john at voipsupport.it
Tue Oct 27 14:20:14 EET 2020
On 22/10/2020 10:23, John Fawcett wrote:
> On 21/10/2020 19:00, John Fawcett wrote:
>> On 21/10/2020 16:44, Patrik Peng wrote:
>>> On 16.10.20 18:34, Patrik Peng wrote:
>>>> On 16.10.20 18:00, Scott Q. wrote:
>>>>> This reminds me, the way I was able to reproduce this consistently
>>>>> was by having large headers ( 100+ lines ).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Friday, 16/10/2020 at 11:49 Patrik Peng wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 19.08.20 17:37, Josef 'Jeff' Sipek wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 17:03:57 +0200, Alessio Cecchi wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> after the upgrade to Dovecot 2.3.11.3, from 2.3.10.1, I see frequently
>>>>>>> these errors from different users:
>>>>>> It looks like this has been around for a while and you just got unlucky and
>>>>>> started seeing this now. Here's a quick & dirty patch that should fix this.
>>>>>> If you can try it, let us know how it went.
>>>>>> Jeff.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/src/plugins/fts-solr/solr-connection.c b/src/plugins/fts-solr/solr-connection.c
>>>>>> index ae720b5e2870a852c1b6c440939e3c7c0fa72b5c..9d364f93e2cd1b716b9ab61bd39656a6c5b1ea04 100644
>>>>>> --- a/src/plugins/fts-solr/solr-connection.c
>>>>>> +++ b/src/plugins/fts-solr/solr-connection.c
>>>>>> @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ int solr_connection_init(const struct fts_solr_settings *solr_set,
>>>>>> http_set.ssl = ssl_client_set;
>>>>>> http_set.debug = solr_set->debug;
>>>>>> http_set.rawlog_dir = solr_set->rawlog_dir;
>>>>>> - solr_http_client = http_client_init(&http_set);
>>>>>> + solr_http_client = http_client_init_private(&http_set);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> *conn_r = conn;
>>>>>> diff --git a/src/plugins/fts/fts-parser-tika.c b/src/plugins/fts/fts-parser-tika.c
>>>>>> index a4b8b5c3034f57e22e77caa759c090da6b62f8ba..b8b57a350b9a710d101ac7ccbcc14560d415d905 100644
>>>>>> --- a/src/plugins/fts/fts-parser-tika.c
>>>>>> +++ b/src/plugins/fts/fts-parser-tika.c
>>>>>> @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ tika_get_http_client_url(struct mail_user *user, struct http_url **http_url_r)
>>>>>> http_set.request_timeout_msecs = 60*1000;
>>>>>> http_set.ssl = &ssl_set;
>>>>>> http_set.debug = user->mail_debug;
>>>>>> - tika_http_client = http_client_init(&http_set);
>>>>>> + tika_http_client = http_client_init_private(&http_set);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> *http_url_r = tuser->http_url;
>>>>>> return 0;
>>>>>
>>>>> Greetings
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm also experiencing these issues while running Dovecot
>>>>> 2.3.11.3 with Solr 8.6.3 on FreeBSD 11.4. As mentioned in a
>>>>> previous mail, the above patch is already applied to Dovecot's
>>>>> FreeBSD Port, confirmed by the patches being present in the
>>>>> portstree
>>>>> (https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/branches/2020Q3/mail/dovecot/files/).
>>>>>
>>>>> In a FreeBSD VM with the official image
>>>>> (https://download.freebsd.org/ftp/releases/VM-IMAGES/12.1-RELEASE/amd64/Latest/)
>>>>> I compiled dovecot from git and was able to reproduce the
>>>>> error with the patch mentioned above applied and also without
>>>>> any patches at all. From these results i conclude, that
>>>>> neither the patches applied in FreeBSDs portstree or the patch
>>>>> above have any influence.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also managed to reproduce the same results on a Debian 10
>>>>> machine (also with and without the patch):
>>>>>
>>>>> doveadm(some.user at example.com): Panic: file http-client-request.c: line 1232 (http_client_request_send_more): assertion failed: (req->payload_input != NULL)
>>>>> doveadm(some.user at example.com): Error: Raw backtrace: /usr/local/lib/dovecot/libdovecot.so <http://libdovecot.so>.0(backtrace_append+0x42) [0x7f093f7fc3c2]
>>>>> -> /usr/local/lib/dovecot/libdovecot.so <http://libdovecot.so>.0(backtrace_get+0x1e) [0x7f093f7fc4ce] -> /usr/local/lib/dovecot/libdovecot.so <http://libdovecot.so>.0(+0xea341) [0x7f093f807341]
>>>>> -> /usr/local/lib/dovecot/libdovecot.so <http://libdovecot.so>.0(+0xea381) [0x7f093f807381] -> /usr/local/lib/dovecot/libdovecot.so <http://libdovecot.so>.0(i_fatal+0) [0x7f093f75c074]
>>>>> -> /usr/local/lib/dovecot/libdovecot.so <http://libdovecot.so>.0(http_client_request_send_more+0x378) [0x7f093f7a47a8]
>>>>> -> /usr/local/lib/dovecot/libdovecot.so <http://libdovecot.so>.0(http_client_connection_output+0xe4) [0x7f093f7a90f4]
>>>>> -> /usr/local/lib/dovecot/libssl_iostream_openssl.so <http://openssl.so>(+0x8bff) [0x7f093ec71bff]
>>>>> -> /usr/local/lib/dovecot/libdovecot.so <http://libdovecot.so>.0(+0x1148b0) [0x7f093f8318b0]
>>>>> -> /usr/local/lib/dovecot/libdovecot.so <http://libdovecot.so>.0(io_loop_call_io+0x69) [0x7f093f820259]
>>>>> -> /usr/local/lib/dovecot/libdovecot.so <http://libdovecot.so>.0(io_loop_handler_run_internal+0x11b) [0x7f093f821b6b]
>>>>> -> /usr/local/lib/dovecot/libdovecot.so <http://libdovecot.so>.0(io_loop_handler_run+0x59) [0x7f093f820369]
>>>>> -> /usr/local/lib/dovecot/libdovecot.so <http://libdovecot.so>.0(io_loop_run+0x38) [0x7f093f820598]
>>>>> -> /usr/local/lib/dovecot/libdovecot.so <http://libdovecot.so>.0(+0x86d1e) [0x7f093f7a3d1e]
>>>>> -> /usr/local/lib/dovecot/libdovecot.so <http://libdovecot.so>.0(http_client_request_finish_payload+0x2e) [0x7f093f7a407e]
>>>>> -> /usr/local/lib/dovecot/lib21_fts_solr_plugin.so <http://plugin.so>(solr_connection_post_end+0x32) [0x7f093b8492c2]
>>>>> -> /usr/local/lib/dovecot/lib21_fts_solr_plugin.so <http://plugin.so>(+0x3a45) [0x7f093b844a45]
>>>>> -> /usr/local/lib/dovecot/lib20_fts_plugin.so <http://plugin.so>(+0x94cc) [0x7f093e1104cc]
>>>>> -> /usr/local/lib/dovecot/lib20_fts_plugin.so <http://plugin.so>(fts_backend_update_deinit+0x23) [0x7f093e110503]
>>>>> -> /usr/local/lib/dovecot/lib20_fts_plugin.so <http://plugin.so>(+0x10a9b) [0x7f093e117a9b]
>>>>> -> /usr/local/lib/dovecot/lib20_fts_plugin.so <http://plugin.so>(+0x119ca) [0x7f093e1189ca]
>>>>> -> /usr/local/lib/dovecot/libdovecot-storage.so <http://libdovecot-storage.so>.0(mailbox_transaction_commit_get_changes+0x56) [0x7f093fb16076]
>>>>> -> /usr/local/lib/dovecot/libdovecot-storage.so <http://libdovecot-storage.so>.0(mailbox_transaction_commit+0x1e) [0x7f093fb1615e]
>>>>> -> doveadm(+0x31370) [0x5607cfa1f370] -> doveadm(+0x2b2a8) [0x5607cfa192a8]
>>>>> -> doveadm(+0x2bfb2) [0x5607cfa19fb2] -> doveadm(doveadm_cmd_ver2_to_mail_cmd_wrapper+0x215) [0x5607cfa1ae05]
>>>>> -> doveadm(doveadm_cmd_run_ver2+0x57c) [0x5607cfa2bbec] -> doveadm(doveadm_cmd_try_run_ver2+0x37) [0x5607cfa2bc37]
>>>>> -> doveadm(main+0x1d2) [0x5607cfa09492]
>>>>> Aborted
>>>>>
>>>>> During my tests I also did notice, that the error appears more
>>>>> often depending of mail size and amount of mails in a folder:
>>>>>
>>>>> Tested with: doveadm -v fts rescan -u some.user at example.com && doveadm -v index -u some.user at example.com '*'
>>>>> 1 Mail in INBOX with 9KB -> Error appeared 0 out of 20 times
>>>>> 1 Mail in INBOX with 136KB -> Error appeared 17 out of 20 times
>>>>> 3 Mails in INBOX with 408KB -> Error appeared 12 out of 20 times
>>>>> 20 Mails in INBOX with ~2MB -> Error appeared 0 out of 20 times
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe this info helps anyone.
>>>>>
>>>>> Patrik
>>>>>
>>>> Yeah, I read your mail and that's why I tested with different mail
>>>> sizes.
>>>> I did some more tests, one with large headers (around 700 lines of
>>>> a long header line) but small body:
>>>>
>>>> 1 Mail in INBOX with 583KB -> Error appeared 5 out of 20 times
>>>>
>>>> and another with a large mail body but normal headers:
>>>>
>>>> 1 Mail in INBOX with 585KB -> Error appeared 0 out of 20 times
>>>> I guess this kinda confirms your guess, but interestingly shows
>>>> less errors than my previous test with a large header 136KB Mail.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Patrik
>>>>
>>> I did notice that changing the batch_size in
>>>
>>> fts_solr = url=http://solr.example.org:8983/solr/ soft_commit=yes batch_size=1000
>>>
>>> does have an influence in how often the error occurs. Setting it to
>>> 1 or some huge number like 10000 reduces the chances quite a bit but
>>> not completely and also causes lots of small , or few but quite
>>> large requests to Solr, so its not a practical workaround.
>>>
>>> Whats the current state of this bug? A fix for it would be very
>>> welcome, as it causes some trouble in our setup.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>> Hi
>>
>> would someone care to post (preferably a link) to a test email with
>> which the problem can be reproduced?
>>
>> thanks
>>
>> Joh
>>
> I can confirm that this is an error that was introduced in 2.3.11.3.
> It did not happen on 2.3.10. I see it occurring on a Centos 7
> installation compiled from source. Between these two releases I didn't
> see changes on the fts-solr code, but I do see some changes on the
> lib-http code. I suspect that the changes done on lib-http have
> introduced this issue.
>
> One temporary solution might be to roll back the relevant commits that
> impacted lib-http and see if the problem resolves. Given the info in
> this thread about the records arriving on solr, I'm wondering if this
> is just a problem where the data has been split into more than one
> request, but the last one has no data left in it.
>
> John
>
Hi
I did a bit of tracing. From the albeit limited examples that I saw the
panic and assert segfault always happens when req->payload_finished is
true. If that observation is correct in general, then the patch is
simple, just put the test for payload_finished before the assert for
payload_input and payload_output. Would anyone with the problem care to
try it and give feedback?
diff -ur dovecot-2.3.11.3-orig/src/lib-http/http-client-request.c
dovecot-2.3.11.3/src/lib-http/http-client-request.c
--- dovecot-2.3.11.3-orig/src/lib-http/http-client-request.c
2020-08-12 14:20:41.000000000 +0200
+++ dovecot-2.3.11.3/src/lib-http/http-client-request.c 2020-10-27
13:06:09.352973130 +0100
@@ -1229,12 +1229,12 @@
const char *error;
uoff_t offset;
- i_assert(req->payload_input != NULL);
- i_assert(req->payload_output != NULL);
-
if (req->payload_finished)
return http_client_request_finish_payload_out(req);
+ i_assert(req->payload_input != NULL);
+ i_assert(req->payload_output != NULL);
+
io_remove(&conn->io_req_payload);
/* chunked ostream needs to write to the parent stream's buffer */
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20201027/b7235a2c/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the dovecot
mailing list