| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andreas Seltenreich <seltenreich(at)gmx(dot)de>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [sqlsmith] crashes in RestoreSnapshot on hot standby |
| Date: | 2016-07-01 03:18:54 |
| Message-ID: | CAEepm=1Xft6DYXmR7Z2qQoRweCUJ8r6_eUMnQaM1c0SCXVGprg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 2:17 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Andreas Seltenreich <seltenreich(at)gmx(dot)de> wrote:
>> #1 0x0000000000822032 in RestoreSnapshot (start_address=start_address(at)entry=0x7f2701d5a110 <error: Cannot access memory at address 0x7f2701d5a110>) at snapmgr.c:2020
>
> memcpy(snapshot->subxip, serialized_xids + serialized_snapshot->xcnt,
> serialized_snapshot->subxcnt * sizeof(TransactionId));
> So this is choking here? Is one of those pointers NULL?
Theory 1:
If serialized_snapshot->xcnt == 0, then snapshot->xip never gets
initialized to a non-NULL value. Then if serialized_snapshot->subxcnt
> 0, we set snapshot->subxip = snapshot->xip +
serialized_snapshot->xcnt (so that's NULL too). Then in line the line
you show we call memcpy(snapshot->subxip, ...). The fix might be
something like the attached.
Theory 2:
The DSM segment was deleted underneath us. We can see that it was not
mapped by the time GDB dumped that (start_address is not accessible).
Theory 3:
Somehow the xcnt or xsubcnt was wrong or the serialized snapshot was
truncated, and we read past the end of the DSM, who knows...
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| fix-subxip.patch | application/octet-stream | 692 bytes |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tsunakawa, Takayuki | 2016-07-01 03:19:19 | Re: Is a UDF binary portable across different minor releases and PostgreSQL distributions? |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-07-01 03:15:37 | Re: Is a UDF binary portable across different minor releases and PostgreSQL distributions? |