segmentation fault freeradius 2.1.7 using rlm_sql
david at coova.com
Tue Aug 2 21:09:18 CEST 2011
Houston, who's having the problem? :)
Perhaps in a perfect world, everyone writing open-source is fully
employed by RedHat, Google, IBM, or some other company who directly or
indirectly benefits from the software. Where you have (paid) teams of
people to patch, maintain, and test features and releases. Of course,
we'd all would like to see and benefit from more rigorous testing and
packaging in open-source. But, isn't that part of your (paid) job? :)
I don't really see the argument being made why the FR team should do all
that you ask; it doesn't put their kids through school or put food on
their tables; and obviously doesn't keep people from using the
You also suggest "Organize a rigorous beta test program." Well, do you
test FR when asked to? Are you suggesting they _pay_ testers? Perhaps
releasing new versions is the only way they eventually get people to
test and report problems...
I know you have the best intentions in mind, but I think it's wrong to
imply the FR team does not...
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 09:48 -0400, John Dennis wrote:
> >> Upgraded freeradius to 2.1.11 (built from source)
> > Don't use 2.1.11 it segfaults, checkout the head of the 2.1.X branch in git
> > Notice how I DIDN'T suggest upgrading to 2.1.11, but to v2.1.x of git
> > branch? There's a reason for that, and you just found out the hard
> > way.
> "Houston, we have a problem" ;-)
> This is not the first time a FreeRADIUS release was not ready for
> production when it was released. Those of us who package upstream
> projects for distribution worry a lot about stability and robustness.
> I've said this before so forgive me, but I'm going to reiterate it
> again. Please don't get mad at the messenger, I have only the best
> intentions with these observations.
> FreeRADIUS has some problems which other projects have avoided.
> * FreeRADIUS has no notion of a "stable release". Many projects maintain
> both a stable production version and a current version (which is not the
> same as the "tip", rather it's tagged in source code control, tested and
> released just like any other release, it's just got a few more features
> than the rock solid stable release). The rock solid stable release has
> been field proven, should have the absolute confidence of system
> administrators and be viable for multiple years (in other words you can
> install it and be confident once it's put in production you're good to
> go for several years. Occasionally a stable release needs a bug or
> security fix. When that occurs the stable release is surgically modified
> to fix exactly that one issue, it's minor version number is bumped.
> System administrators are never told to upgrade to a significant new
> version because of the bug/security issue, instead they reinstall a
> patched version of "stable".
> * FreeRADIUS has way too much churn for a critical system service. Think
> about other system services, how often do you see kerberos, bind,
> iptables, pam, MySQL, etc. going through significant revisions? Are the
> administrators of those services constantly being told to upgrade the
> service because of the bug/feature du jour?
> * The QE component of FreeRADIUS has proven to be inadequate. I know
> Alan runs a set of tests and he calls for testing prior to a new
> release. But we've seen the amount of testing which actually occurs is
> inadequate because releases have gone out with significant problems and
> those releases have gotten pushed into production. I think part of the
> problem is the frequent release schedule (measured in months) and the
> lack of a coordinated beta testing program. Releases should not occur
> until after they've successfully navigated a beta program.
> I humbly would suggest the following:
> * Create and maintain a "stable" version.
> * Organize a rigorous beta test program.
> * Slow down the release schedule, avoid the temptation to cut a new
> release because of minor new features. If production servers can't run
> successfully without a feature that's an indication the prior release
> was too hasty. Critical bug fixes should occur in the release branch and
> the release branch re-released. The release interval for a system
> service like FreeRADIUS should be measured in years, not months or weeks.
> Comments? Thoughts? Do you agree/disagree?
More information about the Freeradius-Devel