Author Topic: segfault in 0.4.19  (Read 17914 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline Harvey

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 244
    • View Profile
Mine crash on 0.4.19 too.
BTS       Witness:harvey-xts Seed:128.199.143.47:2015 API:wss://128.199.143.47:2016 
MUSE   Witness:harvey-xts Seed:128.199.143.47:2017 API:ws://128.199.143.47:2018

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
I wanted to update a price feed and it segfaulted :(
luckily it's just a 'control' node and not the delegate ... but the hardfork will happen today 19pm UTC .. :-\

- crashing on debian
- crashing on archlinux
- independent of price feed publishing ..
« Last Edit: October 02, 2014, 08:47:07 am by xeroc »

Offline bitcoinerS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 592
    • View Profile
my node just crashed on 0.4.19

Code: [Select]
>>>
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
[Switching to Thread 0x7fff87fff700 (LWP 4915)]
std::_Hashtable<bts::net::item_id, bts::net::item_id, std::allocator<bts::net::item_id>, std::__detail::_Identity, std::equal_to<bts::net::item_id>, std::hash<bts::net::item_id>, std::__detail::_Mod_range_hashing, std::__detail::_Default_ranged_hash, std::__detail::_Prime_rehash_policy, std::__detail::_Hashtable_traits<true, true, true> >::find (
    this=this@entry=0x45944, __k=...) at /usr/include/c++/4.8/bits/hashtable.h:1024
1024          std::size_t __n = _M_bucket_index(__k, __code);
(gdb) bt
#0  std::_Hashtable<bts::net::item_id, bts::net::item_id, std::allocator<bts::net::item_id>, std::__detail::_Identity, std::equal_to<bts::net::item_id>, std::hash<bts::net::item_id>, std::__detail::_Mod_range_hashing, std::__detail::_Default_ranged_hash, std::__detail::_Prime_rehash_policy, std::__detail::_Hashtable_traits<true, true, true> >::find (
    this=this@entry=0x45944, __k=...) at /usr/include/c++/4.8/bits/hashtable.h:1024
#1  0x0000000000a4ede5 in find (__x=..., this=0x45944) at /usr/include/c++/4.8/bits/unordered_set.h:517
#2  bts::net::detail::node_impl::process_block_during_normal_operation (this=this@entry=0x5a7c2920, originating_peer=originating_peer@entry=0x7fff659dd210,
    block_message_to_process=..., message_hash=...) at /root/bitsharesx/libraries/net/node.cpp:2828
#3  0x0000000000a5068b in bts::net::detail::node_impl::process_block_message (this=this@entry=0x5a7c2920, originating_peer=originating_peer@entry=0x7fff659dd210,
    message_to_process=..., message_hash=...) at /root/bitsharesx/libraries/net/node.cpp:2880
#4  0x0000000000a51d03 in bts::net::detail::node_impl::on_message (this=0x5a7c2920, originating_peer=0x7fff659dd210, received_message=...)
    at /root/bitsharesx/libraries/net/node.cpp:1598
#5  0x0000000000ac034a in bts::net::detail::message_oriented_connection_impl::read_loop (this=0x7fff65a19490) at /root/bitsharesx/libraries/net/message_oriented_connection.cpp:157
#6  0x0000000000ac271c in operator() (__closure=<optimized out>) at /root/bitsharesx/libraries/net/message_oriented_connection.cpp:100
#7  fc::detail::void_functor_run<bts::net::detail::message_oriented_connection_impl::accept()::__lambda0>::run(void *, void *) (functor=<optimized out>, prom=0x7fff65ab2120)
    at /root/bitsharesx/libraries/fc/include/fc/thread/task.hpp:83
#8  0x00000000006bf323 in fc::task_base::run_impl (this=this@entry=0x7fff65ab2130) at /root/bitsharesx/libraries/fc/src/thread/task.cpp:43
#9  0x00000000006bf9d5 in fc::task_base::run (this=this@entry=0x7fff65ab2130) at /root/bitsharesx/libraries/fc/src/thread/task.cpp:32
#10 0x00000000006bd95b in run_next_task (this=0x7fff7c0008c0) at /root/bitsharesx/libraries/fc/src/thread/thread_d.hpp:415
#11 fc::thread_d::process_tasks (this=this@entry=0x7fff7c0008c0) at /root/bitsharesx/libraries/fc/src/thread/thread_d.hpp:439
#12 0x00000000006bdbe6 in fc::thread_d::start_process_tasks (my=140735273765056) at /root/bitsharesx/libraries/fc/src/thread/thread_d.hpp:395
#13 0x0000000000f4628e in make_fcontext ()
#14 0x00007fff7c0008c0 in ?? ()
#15 0x00007fff7c068be0 in ?? ()
#16 0x0000000000000000 in ?? ()
>>> approve bitcoiners

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
% participation dropped to 88% (red alert)
so I suggest to wait a little bit to upgrade until they give further directions (?)

Offline Webber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 223
    • View Profile
I have same issue, some other delegates have the same problem ,looks like a serious bug,only 4600 blocks now.
Bitshares2.0 witness node:delegate.webber
Bitshares2.0 API:ws://114.215.116.57:8090

Offline puppies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: puppies
My delegate node just ran into a seg fault and I dropped a block.  Unfortunately I was not running in gdb, and the executable was stripped, so I can't get any debug info.  I am currently rebuilding to see if I can reproduce.  Has anyone else run into any problems?

* Edit by Bytemaster
   - this issue has been fixed in the latest toolkit and DAC Sun Limited has been notified that they should merge the fix and provide an update.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2014, 02:21:30 pm by bytemaster »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads