Indexer error after upgrade to 2.3.11.3
Patrik Peng
patrik.peng at hostpoint.ch
Fri Oct 16 19:34:32 EEST 2020
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 -usome.user at example.com && doveadm -v index -usome.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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20201016/d0d44c0b/attachment.html>
More information about the dovecot
mailing list