View Issue Details
ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0005273 | Taler | exchange | public | 2018-02-05 16:26 | 2018-04-15 20:35 |
Reporter | Florian Dold | Assigned To | Florian Dold | ||
Priority | high | Severity | crash | Reproducibility | have not tried |
Status | closed | Resolution | fixed | ||
Product Version | git (master) | ||||
Target Version | 0.5 | Fixed in Version | 0.5 | ||
Summary | 0005273: taler-exchange-wirewatch does not handle row id sizes correctly | ||||
Description | last_row_off_size in taler-exchange-wirewatch is read but never written (it's static so initialized to zero). This lead to the crash below, which we resolved for now by resetting the exchange database. | ||||
Steps To Reproduce | demo-blue@tripwire:~$ taler-exchange-wirewatch -t test Feb 05 15:20:16-401573 taler-exchange-wirewatch-17335 ERROR Assertion failed at plugin_wire_test.c:958. Feb 05 15:20:16-401685 taler-exchange-wirewatch-17335 ERROR Failed to start request for account history! | ||||
Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
|
Eh, I don't see this. It is intentionally left at 0 initially, unless get_latest_reserve_in_reference() succeeds. Overall, whenever we update "last_row_off", we also update last_row_off_size. There was one case on shutdown which did not reset last_row_off_size to 0 which I fixed. I also found and removed a totally bogus GNUNET_break() in cb623d4..61fbc32. |
|
There was clearly something wrong in the old code, maybe you were looking at the wrong "original" version? See this: https://git.taler.net/exchange.git/tree/src/exchange/taler-exchange-wirewatch.c?id=d126b166241e36a33884bc799190c708226ddb7e The variable last_row_off_size was never written to in that file. And it's a static global, so it's *always* equal to zero, which certainly is not what you intended! There was also some additional start_off, which made things more confusing (which AFAIK lead to some bug with the reset mode, I might misremember though). (the GNUnet break you removed was bogus though!) |
|
Well, I see the issues in the old code, but regardless, the code right now looks fine, so clearly this bug should have been resolved, right? |
|
Yes, it should've been resolved! |
Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
---|---|---|---|
2018-02-05 16:26 | Florian Dold | New Issue | |
2018-02-05 16:26 | Florian Dold | Status | new => assigned |
2018-02-05 16:26 | Florian Dold | Assigned To | => Christian Grothoff |
2018-03-12 11:48 | Christian Grothoff | Product Version | => git (master) |
2018-03-12 11:48 | Christian Grothoff | Target Version | => 0.5 |
2018-03-12 12:36 | Christian Grothoff | Note Added: 0012883 | |
2018-03-12 12:37 | Christian Grothoff | Assigned To | Christian Grothoff => Florian Dold |
2018-03-12 12:37 | Christian Grothoff | Status | assigned => feedback |
2018-03-12 13:00 | Florian Dold | Note Added: 0012884 | |
2018-03-12 13:05 | Christian Grothoff | Note Added: 0012885 | |
2018-03-12 13:06 | Florian Dold | Status | feedback => resolved |
2018-03-12 13:06 | Florian Dold | Resolution | open => fixed |
2018-03-12 13:06 | Florian Dold | Note Added: 0012886 | |
2018-04-15 20:35 | Christian Grothoff | Fixed in Version | => 0.5 |
2018-04-15 20:35 | Christian Grothoff | Status | resolved => closed |