Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Sep 1, 2022. It is now read-only.

Segfault upon SIGINT #342

Closed
1 task done
anonimal opened this issue Sep 10, 2016 · 4 comments
Closed
1 task done

Segfault upon SIGINT #342

anonimal opened this issue Sep 10, 2016 · 4 comments
Assignees
Labels
Milestone

Comments

@anonimal
Copy link
Collaborator

By submitting this issue, I confirm the following:

  • I have read and understood the contributor guide.
  • I have checked that the issue I am reporting can be replicated or that the feature I am suggesting is not present.
  • I have checked opened or recently closed pull requests for existing solutions/implementations to my issue/suggestion.

Place an X inside the bracket to confirm

  • I confirm.

Built against 7f8c04f
Simple backtrace attached.

@anonimal anonimal added the bug label Sep 10, 2016
@anonimal anonimal added this to the 0.1.0-alpha milestone Sep 10, 2016
@anonimal
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Another backtrace, this time quickly after startup.

@EinMByte EinMByte self-assigned this Sep 11, 2016
@anonimal anonimal self-assigned this Sep 13, 2016
anonimal added a commit to anonimal/kovri that referenced this issue Sep 13, 2016
Fixes one of the segfaults upon SIGINT

References monero-project#342
@anonimal
Copy link
Collaborator Author

fe270c0 fixes segfault but only if client destination isn't actively used (e.g., start router, wait for integration but don't connect to IRC, ctrl-c, exits normally); otherwise, we have a garlic related segfault (backtrace attached).

@anonimal anonimal mentioned this issue Nov 9, 2016
1 task
anonimal added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 18, 2016
66e50a6 GarlicRoutingSession: use raw pointer for GarlicDestination. Fixes #342 (anonimal)
@guzzijones
Copy link
Contributor

wow. nice work anonimal. how you found this i have no idea. i hope to be as awesome as you some day.

@anonimal
Copy link
Collaborator Author

lol, @guzzijones you're too much 😄 I hope to be as awesome as you some day 😉

The backtrace said it all. I could've spent time with a custom deleter (or refactored elsewhere) but, since there is no current (and I mean current) reason to enforce pointer ownership in this particular area, I thought that a raw pointer would suffice for now (IMHO).

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants