search for: fts_build_mail_real

FTS indexing of binary attachments is broken in dovecot-2.1.15: the binary data which fts_build_mail_real() sends to fts_build_body_block() (which sends it to fts_backend_update_build_more()) is garbled. This patch ungarbles it but I?m not positive it?s the best fix. --- dovecot-2.1.15/src/plugins/fts/fts-build-mail.c 2012-11-27 02:07:27.000000000 -0600 +++ dovecot/src/plugins/fts/fts-build-mail.c 20...

...block=0x7ffd5e021c80) at fts-build-mail.c:164 hdr = 0x1701f08 key = {uid = 8553, type = FTS_BACKEND_BUILD_KEY_HDR, part = 0x1696860, hdr_name = 0x1702120 "To", body_content_type = 0x0, body_content_disposition = 0x0} #2 0x00007f4834fc2b68 in fts_build_mail_real (update_ctx=0x16f5130, mail=0x17010f0) at fts-build-mail.c:540 ctx = {mail = 0x17010f0, update_ctx = 0x16f5130, content_type = 0x0, content_disposition = 0x0, body_parser = 0x0, word_buf = 0x0, pending_input = 0x0, cur_user_lang = 0x0} input = 0x1701990...

On 10 May 2015, at 06:19, Reuben Farrelly <reuben-dovecot at reub.net> wrote: > > I'm now seeing these crashes in the indexing code: > > May 10 12:22:32 tornado.reub.net dovecot: master: Dovecot v2.2.17.rc1 (3903badc4ee0+) starting up for imap, lmtp, sieve > ... > May 10 13:07:50 tornado.reub.net dovecot: indexer: Error: Indexer worker disconnected, discarding 1

...pi.c:193 > __FUNCTION__ = "fts_backend_update_build_more" > #6 0xb7587814 in fts_build_body_block (ctx=0xbfad88fc, block=0xbfad88ec, last=false) at fts-build-mail.c:236 > i = 8188 > __FUNCTION__ = "fts_build_body_block" > #7 0xb7587dfc in fts_build_mail_real (mail=<optimized out>, update_ctx=<optimized out>) at fts-build-mail.c:352 > ctx = {mail = 0x8b32ed0, update_ctx = 0x8b3c578, content_type = 0x0, content_disposition = 0x0, > body_parser = 0x8b40f20, word_buf = 0x0} > parser = 0x8c21948 > d...

...-build-mail.c:173 hdr = <optimized out> key = {uid = 6006200, type = FTS_BACKEND_BUILD_KEY_HDR, part = 0x55c7b935eed0, hdr_name = 0x55c7b943fb5f "RETURN-PATH", body_content_type = 0x0, body_content_disposition = 0x0} ret = <optimized out> #9 fts_build_mail_real (may_need_retry_r=0x7ffc1ba2c2f3, retriable_err_msg_r=0x7ffc1ba2c300, mail=0x55c7b93dcff8, update_ctx=0x55c7b93e0140) at fts-build-mail.c:568 block = {part = 0x55c7b935eed0, hdr = 0x55c7b93d7f18, data = 0x55c7b938b8a8 "", size = 0} ret = <optimized out> input...

...ffffdd20) at fts-build-mail.c:174 hdr = <optimized out> key = {uid = 96, type = FTS_BACKEND_BUILD_KEY_HDR, part = 0x5555557dd2c0, hdr_name = 0x5555558396b0 "Return-Path", body_content_type = 0x0, body_content_disposition = 0x0} ret = <optimized out> #7 fts_build_mail_real (mail=0x555555838190, update_ctx=0x55555583a550) at fts-build-mail.c:548 block = {part = 0x5555557dd2c0, hdr = 0x555555839458, data = 0x55550000007c <error: Cannot access memory at address 0x55550000007c>, size = 0} ret = <optimized out> input = 0x555555838eb0...

...imized out> pos = 6042 size = 6042 error = 0x7fff678c4760 "\020B0\002" #7 message_decoder_decode_next_block (ctx=0x2370b60, input=input at entry=0x7fff678c4760, output=output at entry=0x7fff678c4780) at message-decoder.c:375 No locals. #8 0x00007f1b726fbe3e in fts_build_mail_real (mail=0x23639b0, update_ctx=0x2355980) at fts-build-mail.c:543 ctx = {mail = 0x23639b0, update_ctx = 0x2355980, content_type = 0x2371540 "text/*", content_disposition = 0x2371fa0 "attachment; filename=\"PTT-20141109-WA0001.amr\"", body_parser = 0x23832a0, word_...

...fts-build-mail.c:179 hdr = 0x801ccf118 key = {uid = 39486, type = FTS_BACKEND_BUILD_KEY_HDR, part = 0x801c09c58, hdr_name = 0x801c4ba20 "Return-Path", body_content_type = 0x0, body_content_disposition = 0x0} ret = 32767 #17 0x000000080220f292 in fts_build_mail_real (update_ctx=0x801c21240, mail=0x801c63040) at fts-build-mail.c:548 ctx = {mail = 0x801c63040, update_ctx = 0x801c21240, content_type = 0x0, content_disposition = 0x0, body_parser = 0x0, word_buf = 0x0, pending_input = 0x0, cur_user_lang = 0x0} input = 0x801cc...

Hi! We found some problems with those patches, and ended up doing slightly different fix: https://github.com/dovecot/core/compare/3e41b3d%5E...cca98b.patch Aki On 24.10.2016 10:17, Aki Tuomi wrote: > Hi! > > Can you try these two patches? > > Aki > > > On 24.10.2016 08:48, Aki Tuomi wrote: >> Ok so that timeval makes no sense. We'll look into it. >>