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/Lates...) 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@example.com): Panic: file http-client-request.c: line 1232 (http_client_request_send_more): assertion failed: (req->payload_input != NULL) doveadm(some.user@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@example.com && doveadm -v index -u some.user@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 */