BIND 9.5.0-P1 exiting due to assertion failure in rbtdb.c

Fri Aug 8 01:21:42 UTC 2008

On Aug 7, 2008, at 5:24 PM, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:

> Thanks, some additional questions:
>
> - how often have you seen this?  Have you seen it multiple times?
> - especially if it repeats, does it happen if you build named
>   --disable-atomic?
> - also especially if it repeats, does it happen for 9.4 or only for
>   9.5?

It has happened 3 times since we switched to 9.5.0-P1 yesterday.

I haven't tried building with --disable-atomic; if you think that's
a possible fix, I'll give it a try.

We haven't tried 9.4, so I can't say if the same problem occurs in
that version. We specifically upgraded to 9.5 because of the
security advisory regarding the DNS protocol. (Previously we
were running Bind-8.)

-- 
Kai LanzFrom emery.rudolph at gmail.com  Fri Aug  8 02:24:24 2008
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list bind-users); Fri, 08 Aug 2008 02:24:24 +0000 (UTC)
Return-Path: <emery.rudolph at gmail.com>
X-Original-To: bind-users at webster.isc.org
Received: from mx.isc.org (mx.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::1c])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client CN "mx.isc.org", Issuer "ISC CA" (verified OK))
	by webster.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D4FF10E418
	for <bind-users at webster.isc.org>; Fri,  8 Aug 2008 02:24:24 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from emery.rudolph at gmail.com)
Received: from yw-out-1718.google.com (yw-out-1718.google.com [74.125.46.158])
	by mx.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00090114050
	for <bind-users at isc.org>; Fri,  8 Aug 2008 02:24:21 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from emery.rudolph at gmail.com)
Received: by yw-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 5so385066ywm.26
        for <bind-users at isc.org>; Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:24:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to
         :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
        bh=awtZ4jbXAccynXvPq5r+eKLAI2I6+2ro5ZkI9nc4rC4=;
        b=aWyvmCj8uoZ3trR7j6X1J74hg9mpUodwz9o44sWpAbR7sKZajxIxVRelxwcHIljlSp
         eMk2Ln168rgrfxCuvGz2fC4obtzsc1oO2Zr3QrUT3REOzsMXx1AprxMjWHK4qN59RD6C
         wjJOxsZuiK7tYKsLpzb8wMz8nIUW3N9YdX2Ek=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version
         :content-type:references;
        b=dU0wYznzCVO4FXLsLMoDJWGnwvRFmmUbC5TgxaOzC8KGKW0kXnNUBg6svEcMGehcNO
         5wbGULkLJvgBR2W/c98TcTrUorJ5gIvV0qbRNKUpusDUBq+Qg9NaONVBOLufIuDWXFFC
         iO6GQ34VlLHa8ZsXrsVvqlmsSdqrDa0bi/Xwo=
Received: by 10.150.58.1 with SMTP id g1mr6413905yba.85.1218162259429;
        Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:24:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.150.202.7 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Aug 2008 19:24:19 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <71f8a95d0808071924me13305cqda7e5634a9ffb526 at mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 22:24:19 -0400
From: "Emery Rudolph" <emery.rudolph at gmail.com>
To: "=?BIG5?B?SklOTUVJIFRhdHV5YSAvIK+rqfq5Rqt2?=" <Jinmei_Tatuya at isc.org>
Subject: Re: Issues with BIND 9.5.0-P2
Cc: Elias <elias at streamyx.com>, bind-users at isc.org
In-Reply-To: <71f8a95d0808051826m40bc267bo53cd3c9a58a68cd2 at mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain
References: <F38A138090C742F780D6F804FD892E6B at EliasLaptop>
	 <m2ej53pldx.wl%Jinmei_Tatuya at isc.org>
	 <71f8a95d0808051020l4ef56cdcpe1cd60b2ce06f1a at mail.gmail.com>
	 <m2bq07pbv9.wl%Jinmei_Tatuya at isc.org>
	 <71f8a95d0808051331g7a3a6fb8wdf7a3f79ae38b478 at mail.gmail.com>
	 <71f8a95d0808051826m40bc267bo53cd3c9a58a68cd2 at mail.gmail.com>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE,
	USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO autolearn=ham version=3.2.4
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.4 (2008-01-01) on mx.isc.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: bind-users-bounce at isc.org
Errors-to: bind-users-bounce at isc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:bind-users-request at isc.org?Subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <bind-users.isc.org>
X-List-ID: <bind-users.isc.org>

As an update on my experience with the new 9.5.0-P2 code.
I've been running the new code for a solid 50 hours and I can say that this
code has definitely worked for me. The number of UDP ports is absolutely
normal ( <100) and it has never produced a file descriptor error. In
comparison, my other server is still running the P1 code and it has more
than 1100 UDP ports open and plenty of file descriptor errors.

I am now satisfied that this is the golden version.

Thanks ISC for being persistent in rectifying the errors and addressing the
larger vulnerability.

Emery Rudolph
Sr. Systems Analyst
Office of Information Technology
University of Maryland University College

2008/8/5 Emery Rudolph <emery.rudolph at gmail.com>

> UPDATE -
>
> I decided to bite the bullet and move the last nameserver off of the old X1
> architecture with the P1 code, to the new T2000 32-core with the 9.5.0-P2.
> The good news is that it is working fine without the dreaded "too many file
> descriptors error", which appeared immediately upon activation of the BIND
> daemon in the P1 version.
>
> I will keep a close eye on the service, but I am knocking wood that this
> one is good!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Emery Rudolph
>
> 2008/8/5 Emery Rudolph <emery.rudolph at gmail.com>
>
> I can deal with the "too many descriptors" error, because I am running BIND
>> on 32-core boxes, which don't sweat the overhead. What I will not be able to
>> handle are unserved queries. I am in a quandry because I have one nameserver
>> that is not on the new hardware and it is ocassionally hitting 100% cpu
>> utilization, while the 32-core box, which is getting the same errors is only
>> hitting 6% cpu utilization.
>>
>> As I said, I am planning to move the named service to off of the older
>> hardware, but I am in a quandry as to whether to move to 9.5.0-P1 or P2.
>>
>> I think another problem will be - now that so many people have remediated
>> the immediate concern, they will not bother to move to P2, so the pool of
>> feedback is going to be much, much lower than the first go around.
>>
>> Emery Rudolph
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 2:15 PM, JINMEI Tatuya / $B?@L at C#:H(B <
>> Jinmei_Tatuya at isc.org> wrote:
>>
>>> At Tue, 5 Aug 2008 13:20:03 -0400,
>>> "Emery Rudolph" <emery.rudolph at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > This is exactly what I did not want to hear. I have been using the
>>> 9.5.0-P1
>>> > version was hoping the "too many file descriptors" error was going to
>>> be
>>> > solved in the P2 distribution. Several ISC representatives promised as
>>> much.
>>> > I really would like to hear more feedback from P2 users on Solaris 10
>>> before
>>> > moving forward.
>>>
>>> The difficult part is to provide a reasonable parameter for
>>> FD_SETSIZE/ ISC_SOCKET_FDSETSIZE, etc that work for everyone.  That's
>>> why P2 doesn't try to change the system default by default.  Even
>>> though I know even P2 should still have some scalability
>>> limitation, I suspect the primary reason for this particular report is
>>> the use of a small FD_SETSIZE value.  I understand your concern, but
>>> I'd appreciate if you could still be a bit more patient to see what
>>> actually happened.
>>>
>>> ---
>>> JINMEI, Tatuya
>>> Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
>>>
>>
>>
>