Guix test failure on tests/store.

DoneSubmitted by Roel Janssen.
Details
2 participants
  • Ludovic Courtès
  • Roel Janssen
Owner
unassigned
Severity
normal
R
R
Roel Janssen wrote on 12 Dec 2017 13:12
(address . bug-guix@gnu.org)
87tvwwcfhn.fsf@gnu.org
Dear Guix,
I built Guix on our cluster (from commit 8be84d3), and the test suitefails for "tests/store".
I attached the build log. The relevant bit is this:
actual-error:+ (srfi-34+ #<condition &nix-protocol-error [message: "path `dtmp/guix-tests/store/462z3fnl7bs44vp9s97jyg1z74nsfvly-tar' is not in the Nix store" status: 1] 1071090>)result: FAIL
Does this mean I have an inconsistency in the store?
Kind regards,Roel Janssen
Attachment: test-suite.log
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 12 Dec 2017 17:06
(name . Roel Janssen)(address . roel@gnu.org)(address . 29676@debbugs.gnu.org)
87shcgorq5.fsf@gnu.org
Hi,
Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org> skribis:
Toggle quote (7 lines)> I attached the build log. The relevant bit is this:>> actual-error:> + (srfi-34> + #<condition &nix-protocol-error [message: "path `dtmp/guix-tests/store/462z3fnl7bs44vp9s97jyg1z74nsfvly-tar' is not in the Nix store" status: 1] 1071090>)> result: FAIL
The “dtmp” bit (instead of “/tmp”) looks fishy and would suggest amemory corruption, presumably in the daemon.
I suppose the failure random, isn’t it?
Toggle quote (2 lines)> Does this mean I have an inconsistency in the store?
No, definitely not. Those tests run on a scratch store, in/tmp/guix-tests/store.
Ludo’.
R
R
Roel Janssen wrote on 12 Dec 2017 17:50
(name . Ludovic Courtès)(address . ludo@gnu.org)(address . 29676@debbugs.gnu.org)
87shcfdh5w.fsf@gnu.org
Ludovic Courtès writes:
Toggle quote (14 lines)> Hi,>> Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org> skribis:>>> I attached the build log. The relevant bit is this:>>>> actual-error:>> + (srfi-34>> + #<condition &nix-protocol-error [message: "path `dtmp/guix-tests/store/462z3fnl7bs44vp9s97jyg1z74nsfvly-tar' is not in the Nix store" status: 1] 1071090>)>> result: FAIL>> The “dtmp” bit (instead of “/tmp”) looks fishy and would suggest a> memory corruption, presumably in the daemon.
The daemon used in the test, or the daemon used to do the package build?
Toggle quote (3 lines)>> I suppose the failure random, isn’t it?
I ran it again, and I've got the same error:
actual-error:+ (srfi-34+ #<condition &nix-protocol-error [message: "path `dtmp/guix-tests/store/462z3fnl7bs44vp9s97jyg1z74nsfvly-tar' is not in the Nix store" status: 1] 1754ed0>)
So that's either a very funny coincidence, or it's a structural problem.
Toggle quote (6 lines)>>> Does this mean I have an inconsistency in the store?>> No, definitely not. Those tests run on a scratch store, in> /tmp/guix-tests/store.
Ok. That's some good news at least. :)
Do you have any suggestions for how I can debug this problem?
Kind regards,Roel Janssen
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 12 Dec 2017 21:22
(name . Roel Janssen)(address . roel@gnu.org)(address . 29676@debbugs.gnu.org)
871sjzitmm.fsf@gnu.org
Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org> skribis:
Toggle quote (18 lines)> Ludovic Courtès writes:>>> Hi,>>>> Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org> skribis:>>>>> I attached the build log. The relevant bit is this:>>>>>> actual-error:>>> + (srfi-34>>> + #<condition &nix-protocol-error [message: "path `dtmp/guix-tests/store/462z3fnl7bs44vp9s97jyg1z74nsfvly-tar' is not in the Nix store" status: 1] 1071090>)>>> result: FAIL>>>> The “dtmp” bit (instead of “/tmp”) looks fishy and would suggest a>> memory corruption, presumably in the daemon.>> The daemon used in the test, or the daemon used to do the package build?
The daemon under test (within the build environment).
Toggle quote (10 lines)>> I suppose the failure random, isn’t it?>> I ran it again, and I've got the same error:>> actual-error:> + (srfi-34> + #<condition &nix-protocol-error [message: "path `dtmp/guix-tests/store/462z3fnl7bs44vp9s97jyg1z74nsfvly-tar' is not in the Nix store" status: 1] 1754ed0>)>> So that's either a very funny coincidence, or it's a structural problem.
It’s better if it’s not random. :-)
Toggle quote (2 lines)> Do you have any suggestions for how I can debug this problem?
Assuming the failure also happens when you run “make check” outside thebuild container (in the failed build tree), can you add ‘valgrind’ in‘test-env’? Specifically, in ‘test-env’, look for the line that invokes‘./pre-inst-env guix-daemon’ and change it to ‘./pre-inst-env valgrindguix-daemon’.
Ludo’.
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 20 Dec 2017 14:11
(name . Roel Janssen)(address . roel@gnu.org)(address . 29676@debbugs.gnu.org)
87ind1y262.fsf@gnu.org
Hi Roel,
ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) skribis:
Toggle quote (2 lines)> Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org> skribis:
[...]
Toggle quote (32 lines)>>>> actual-error:>>>> + (srfi-34>>>> + #<condition &nix-protocol-error [message: "path `dtmp/guix-tests/store/462z3fnl7bs44vp9s97jyg1z74nsfvly-tar' is not in the Nix store" status: 1] 1071090>)>>>> result: FAIL>>>>>> The “dtmp” bit (instead of “/tmp”) looks fishy and would suggest a>>> memory corruption, presumably in the daemon.>>>> The daemon used in the test, or the daemon used to do the package build?>> The daemon under test (within the build environment).>>>> I suppose the failure random, isn’t it?>>>> I ran it again, and I've got the same error:>>>> actual-error:>> + (srfi-34>> + #<condition &nix-protocol-error [message: "path `dtmp/guix-tests/store/462z3fnl7bs44vp9s97jyg1z74nsfvly-tar' is not in the Nix store" status: 1] 1754ed0>)>>>> So that's either a very funny coincidence, or it's a structural problem.>> It’s better if it’s not random. :-)>>> Do you have any suggestions for how I can debug this problem?>> Assuming the failure also happens when you run “make check” outside the> build container (in the failed build tree), can you add ‘valgrind’ in> ‘test-env’? Specifically, in ‘test-env’, look for the line that invokes> ‘./pre-inst-env guix-daemon’ and change it to ‘./pre-inst-env valgrind> guix-daemon’.
Did you manage to gather more info?
Thanks,Ludo’.
R
R
Roel Janssen wrote on 21 Dec 2017 15:55
(name . Ludovic Courtès)(address . ludo@gnu.org)(address . 29676@debbugs.gnu.org)
87vah0ruyr.fsf@gnu.org
Ludovic Courtès writes:
Toggle quote (42 lines)> Hi Roel,>> ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) skribis:>>> Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org> skribis:>> [...]>>>>>> actual-error:>>>>> + (srfi-34>>>>> + #<condition &nix-protocol-error [message: "path `dtmp/guix-tests/store/462z3fnl7bs44vp9s97jyg1z74nsfvly-tar' is not in the Nix store" status: 1] 1071090>)>>>>> result: FAIL>>>>>>>> The “dtmp” bit (instead of “/tmp”) looks fishy and would suggest a>>>> memory corruption, presumably in the daemon.>>>>>> The daemon used in the test, or the daemon used to do the package build?>>>> The daemon under test (within the build environment).>>>>>> I suppose the failure random, isn’t it?>>>>>> I ran it again, and I've got the same error:>>>>>> actual-error:>>> + (srfi-34>>> + #<condition &nix-protocol-error [message: "path `dtmp/guix-tests/store/462z3fnl7bs44vp9s97jyg1z74nsfvly-tar' is not in the Nix store" status: 1] 1754ed0>)>>>>>> So that's either a very funny coincidence, or it's a structural problem.>>>> It’s better if it’s not random. :-)>>>>> Do you have any suggestions for how I can debug this problem?>>>> Assuming the failure also happens when you run “make check” outside the>> build container (in the failed build tree), can you add ‘valgrind’ in>> ‘test-env’? Specifically, in ‘test-env’, look for the line that invokes>> ‘./pre-inst-env guix-daemon’ and change it to ‘./pre-inst-env valgrind>> guix-daemon’.>> Did you manage to gather more info?
No. When I run "make check -k" many tests fail. So my idea is tocreate a custom Guix package with valgrind in its inputs to letguix-daemon build that.
Kind regards,Roel Janssen
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 21 Dec 2017 16:01
(name . Roel Janssen)(address . roel@gnu.org)(address . 29676@debbugs.gnu.org)
874lok5dmm.fsf@gnu.org
Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org> skribis:
Toggle quote (46 lines)> Ludovic Courtès writes:>>> Hi Roel,>>>> ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) skribis:>>>>> Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org> skribis:>>>> [...]>>>>>>>> actual-error:>>>>>> + (srfi-34>>>>>> + #<condition &nix-protocol-error [message: "path `dtmp/guix-tests/store/462z3fnl7bs44vp9s97jyg1z74nsfvly-tar' is not in the Nix store" status: 1] 1071090>)>>>>>> result: FAIL>>>>>>>>>> The “dtmp” bit (instead of “/tmp”) looks fishy and would suggest a>>>>> memory corruption, presumably in the daemon.>>>>>>>> The daemon used in the test, or the daemon used to do the package build?>>>>>> The daemon under test (within the build environment).>>>>>>>> I suppose the failure random, isn’t it?>>>>>>>> I ran it again, and I've got the same error:>>>>>>>> actual-error:>>>> + (srfi-34>>>> + #<condition &nix-protocol-error [message: "path `dtmp/guix-tests/store/462z3fnl7bs44vp9s97jyg1z74nsfvly-tar' is not in the Nix store" status: 1] 1754ed0>)>>>>>>>> So that's either a very funny coincidence, or it's a structural problem.>>>>>> It’s better if it’s not random. :-)>>>>>>> Do you have any suggestions for how I can debug this problem?>>>>>> Assuming the failure also happens when you run “make check” outside the>>> build container (in the failed build tree), can you add ‘valgrind’ in>>> ‘test-env’? Specifically, in ‘test-env’, look for the line that invokes>>> ‘./pre-inst-env guix-daemon’ and change it to ‘./pre-inst-env valgrind>>> guix-daemon’.>>>> Did you manage to gather more info?>> No. When I run "make check -k" many tests fail.
In a fresh checkout? If many tests fail, then there’s probablysomething wrong with the environment, such as guix-daemon failing tostart or something. Could you check the logs?
Thanks,Ludo’.
R
R
Roel Janssen wrote on 21 Dec 2017 17:49
(name . Ludovic Courtès)(address . ludo@gnu.org)(address . 29676@debbugs.gnu.org)
87tvwkc9g1.fsf@gnu.org
Ludovic Courtès writes:
Toggle quote (52 lines)> Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org> skribis:>>> Ludovic Courtès writes:>>>>> Hi Roel,>>>>>> ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) skribis:>>>>>>> Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org> skribis:>>>>>> [...]>>>>>>>>>> actual-error:>>>>>>> + (srfi-34>>>>>>> + #<condition &nix-protocol-error [message: "path `dtmp/guix-tests/store/462z3fnl7bs44vp9s97jyg1z74nsfvly-tar' is not in the Nix store" status: 1] 1071090>)>>>>>>> result: FAIL>>>>>>>>>>>> The “dtmp” bit (instead of “/tmp”) looks fishy and would suggest a>>>>>> memory corruption, presumably in the daemon.>>>>>>>>>> The daemon used in the test, or the daemon used to do the package build?>>>>>>>> The daemon under test (within the build environment).>>>>>>>>>> I suppose the failure random, isn’t it?>>>>>>>>>> I ran it again, and I've got the same error:>>>>>>>>>> actual-error:>>>>> + (srfi-34>>>>> + #<condition &nix-protocol-error [message: "path `dtmp/guix-tests/store/462z3fnl7bs44vp9s97jyg1z74nsfvly-tar' is not in the Nix store" status: 1] 1754ed0>)>>>>>>>>>> So that's either a very funny coincidence, or it's a structural problem.>>>>>>>> It’s better if it’s not random. :-)>>>>>>>>> Do you have any suggestions for how I can debug this problem?>>>>>>>> Assuming the failure also happens when you run “make check” outside the>>>> build container (in the failed build tree), can you add ‘valgrind’ in>>>> ‘test-env’? Specifically, in ‘test-env’, look for the line that invokes>>>> ‘./pre-inst-env guix-daemon’ and change it to ‘./pre-inst-env valgrind>>>> guix-daemon’.>>>>>> Did you manage to gather more info?>>>> No. When I run "make check -k" many tests fail.>> In a fresh checkout? If many tests fail, then there’s probably> something wrong with the environment, such as guix-daemon failing to> start or something. Could you check the logs?
Indeed. I found out that guix-daemon couldn't start because I didn'tset --localstatedir properly. I "make check" again and that yields thesame issue with tests/store.scm.
However, upon changing test-env to include valgrind, more tests failagain because of a problem accessing the daemon-socket.
So I manually started the guix-daemon with --disable-chroot andprepended valgrind --leak-check=full to it. Then I ran:$ guile -s tests/store.scm
Which yielding many more failures.Then:$ make check
Which also yielded more test failures.
I don't think the memory problem is in the log, but at least it showsthat we should have a look at the memory allocation of guix-daemon.
Kind regards,Roel Janssen
Attachment: valgrind.log
R
R
Roel Janssen wrote on 21 Dec 2017 20:53
(name . Ludovic Courtès)(address . ludo@gnu.org)(address . 29676@debbugs.gnu.org)
87inczhn78.fsf@gnu.org
Ludovic Courtès writes:
Toggle quote (55 lines)> Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org> skribis:>>> Ludovic Courtès writes:>>>>> Hi Roel,>>>>>> ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) skribis:>>>>>>> Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org> skribis:>>>>>> [...]>>>>>>>>>> actual-error:>>>>>>> + (srfi-34>>>>>>> + #<condition &nix-protocol-error [message: "path `dtmp/guix-tests/store/462z3fnl7bs44vp9s97jyg1z74nsfvly-tar' is not in the Nix store" status: 1] 1071090>)>>>>>>> result: FAIL>>>>>>>>>>>> The “dtmp” bit (instead of “/tmp”) looks fishy and would suggest a>>>>>> memory corruption, presumably in the daemon.>>>>>>>>>> The daemon used in the test, or the daemon used to do the package build?>>>>>>>> The daemon under test (within the build environment).>>>>>>>>>> I suppose the failure random, isn’t it?>>>>>>>>>> I ran it again, and I've got the same error:>>>>>>>>>> actual-error:>>>>> + (srfi-34>>>>> + #<condition &nix-protocol-error [message: "path `dtmp/guix-tests/store/462z3fnl7bs44vp9s97jyg1z74nsfvly-tar' is not in the Nix store" status: 1] 1754ed0>)>>>>>>>>>> So that's either a very funny coincidence, or it's a structural problem.>>>>>>>> It’s better if it’s not random. :-)>>>>>>>>> Do you have any suggestions for how I can debug this problem?>>>>>>>> Assuming the failure also happens when you run “make check” outside the>>>> build container (in the failed build tree), can you add ‘valgrind’ in>>>> ‘test-env’? Specifically, in ‘test-env’, look for the line that invokes>>>> ‘./pre-inst-env guix-daemon’ and change it to ‘./pre-inst-env valgrind>>>> guix-daemon’.>>>>>> Did you manage to gather more info?>>>> No. When I run "make check -k" many tests fail.>> In a fresh checkout? If many tests fail, then there’s probably> something wrong with the environment, such as guix-daemon failing to> start or something. Could you check the logs?>> Thanks,> Ludo’.
Indeed. I found out that guix-daemon couldn't start because I didn'tset --localstatedir properly. I "make check" again and that yields thesame issue with tests/store.scm.
However, upon changing test-env to include valgrind, more tests failagain because of a problem accessing the daemon-socket.
So I manually started the guix-daemon with --disable-chroot andprepended valgrind --leak-check=full to it. Then I ran:$ guile -s tests/store.scm
Which yielding many more failures.Then:$ make check
Which also yielded more test failures. But at least I have a valgrindlog now, which I uploaded here:https://www.roelj.com/guix-daemon-valgrind.log.gz
I don't think the memory problem is in the log, but at least it showsthat we should have a look at the memory allocation of guix-daemon.Sometimes it seems to leak memory.
Kind regards,Roel Janssen
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 22 Dec 2017 10:24
(name . Roel Janssen)(address . roel@gnu.org)(address . 29676@debbugs.gnu.org)
87lghv9ku7.fsf@gnu.org
Hello,
Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org> skribis:
Toggle quote (14 lines)> ==24971== 4,104 bytes in 1 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 351 of 365> ==24971== at 0x4C2AAD6: malloc (in /gnu/store/18w3ykyqkcq5zp1qx17qhamkxlczzl0n-valgrind-3.12.0/lib/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-linux.so)> ==24971== by 0x4E719E3: sqlite3MemMalloc (in /gnu/store/6d4ihp7xbdh3a0ffbpm5n45q4v3w0l35-sqlite-3.19.3/lib/libsqlite3.so.0.8.6)> ==24971== by 0x4E4DB8B: sqlite3Malloc (in /gnu/store/6d4ihp7xbdh3a0ffbpm5n45q4v3w0l35-sqlite-3.19.3/lib/libsqlite3.so.0.8.6)> ==24971== by 0x4E51316: pcache1Alloc (in /gnu/store/6d4ihp7xbdh3a0ffbpm5n45q4v3w0l35-sqlite-3.19.3/lib/libsqlite3.so.0.8.6)> ==24971== by 0x4E6E71A: sqlite3BtreeCursor (in /gnu/store/6d4ihp7xbdh3a0ffbpm5n45q4v3w0l35-sqlite-3.19.3/lib/libsqlite3.so.0.8.6)> ==24971== by 0x4EA9053: sqlite3VdbeExec (in /gnu/store/6d4ihp7xbdh3a0ffbpm5n45q4v3w0l35-sqlite-3.19.3/lib/libsqlite3.so.0.8.6)> ==24971== by 0x4EB271E: sqlite3_step (in /gnu/store/6d4ihp7xbdh3a0ffbpm5n45q4v3w0l35-sqlite-3.19.3/lib/libsqlite3.so.0.8.6)> ==24971== by 0x4EB34D1: sqlite3_exec (in /gnu/store/6d4ihp7xbdh3a0ffbpm5n45q4v3w0l35-sqlite-3.19.3/lib/libsqlite3.so.0.8.6)> ==24971== by 0x426886: nix::LocalStore::openDB(bool) (local-store.cc:293)> ==24971== by 0x42BEF4: nix::LocalStore::LocalStore(bool) (local-store.cc:169)> ==24971== by 0x40A356: acceptConnection(int)::{lambda()#1}::operator()() const (nix-daemon.cc:755)> ==24971== by 0x40E16B: std::_Function_handler<void (), acceptConnection(int)::{lambda()#1}>::_M_invoke(std::_Any_data const&) (functional:1871)
I suspect these “possibly lost” reports are false alarms.
Anyway, there’s no “invalid read” or “invalid write” report, which iswhat we were looking for. :-/
Thanks,Ludo’.
R
R
Roel Janssen wrote on 3 Jan 2018 18:59
(name . Ludovic Courtès)(address . ludo@gnu.org)(address . 29676@debbugs.gnu.org)
87fu7m6cxs.fsf@gnu.org
Ludovic Courtès writes:
Toggle quote (23 lines)> Hello,>> Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org> skribis:>>> ==24971== 4,104 bytes in 1 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 351 of 365>> ==24971== at 0x4C2AAD6: malloc (in /gnu/store/18w3ykyqkcq5zp1qx17qhamkxlczzl0n-valgrind-3.12.0/lib/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-linux.so)>> ==24971== by 0x4E719E3: sqlite3MemMalloc (in /gnu/store/6d4ihp7xbdh3a0ffbpm5n45q4v3w0l35-sqlite-3.19.3/lib/libsqlite3.so.0.8.6)>> ==24971== by 0x4E4DB8B: sqlite3Malloc (in /gnu/store/6d4ihp7xbdh3a0ffbpm5n45q4v3w0l35-sqlite-3.19.3/lib/libsqlite3.so.0.8.6)>> ==24971== by 0x4E51316: pcache1Alloc (in /gnu/store/6d4ihp7xbdh3a0ffbpm5n45q4v3w0l35-sqlite-3.19.3/lib/libsqlite3.so.0.8.6)>> ==24971== by 0x4E6E71A: sqlite3BtreeCursor (in /gnu/store/6d4ihp7xbdh3a0ffbpm5n45q4v3w0l35-sqlite-3.19.3/lib/libsqlite3.so.0.8.6)>> ==24971== by 0x4EA9053: sqlite3VdbeExec (in /gnu/store/6d4ihp7xbdh3a0ffbpm5n45q4v3w0l35-sqlite-3.19.3/lib/libsqlite3.so.0.8.6)>> ==24971== by 0x4EB271E: sqlite3_step (in /gnu/store/6d4ihp7xbdh3a0ffbpm5n45q4v3w0l35-sqlite-3.19.3/lib/libsqlite3.so.0.8.6)>> ==24971== by 0x4EB34D1: sqlite3_exec (in /gnu/store/6d4ihp7xbdh3a0ffbpm5n45q4v3w0l35-sqlite-3.19.3/lib/libsqlite3.so.0.8.6)>> ==24971== by 0x426886: nix::LocalStore::openDB(bool) (local-store.cc:293)>> ==24971== by 0x42BEF4: nix::LocalStore::LocalStore(bool) (local-store.cc:169)>> ==24971== by 0x40A356: acceptConnection(int)::{lambda()#1}::operator()() const (nix-daemon.cc:755)>> ==24971== by 0x40E16B: std::_Function_handler<void (), acceptConnection(int)::{lambda()#1}>::_M_invoke(std::_Any_data const&) (functional:1871)>> I suspect these “possibly lost” reports are false alarms.>> Anyway, there’s no “invalid read” or “invalid write” report, which is> what we were looking for. :-/
Indeed. There are some 'definitely lost' reports as well, but these arevery small.
I can't seem to reproduce this on my laptop, which is strange becausethe machine I do get the test failure on has ECC memory, and my laptopdoesn't have that.
Kind regards,Roel Janssen
R
R
Roel Janssen wrote on 3 Feb 2018 01:13
(name . Ludovic Courtès)(address . ludo@gnu.org)(address . 29676-close@debbugs.gnu.org)
87po5nhqv3.fsf@gnu.org
Ludovic Courtès writes:
Toggle quote (26 lines)> Hello,>> Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org> skribis:>>> ==24971== 4,104 bytes in 1 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 351 of 365>> ==24971== at 0x4C2AAD6: malloc (in /gnu/store/18w3ykyqkcq5zp1qx17qhamkxlczzl0n-valgrind-3.12.0/lib/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-linux.so)>> ==24971== by 0x4E719E3: sqlite3MemMalloc (in /gnu/store/6d4ihp7xbdh3a0ffbpm5n45q4v3w0l35-sqlite-3.19.3/lib/libsqlite3.so.0.8.6)>> ==24971== by 0x4E4DB8B: sqlite3Malloc (in /gnu/store/6d4ihp7xbdh3a0ffbpm5n45q4v3w0l35-sqlite-3.19.3/lib/libsqlite3.so.0.8.6)>> ==24971== by 0x4E51316: pcache1Alloc (in /gnu/store/6d4ihp7xbdh3a0ffbpm5n45q4v3w0l35-sqlite-3.19.3/lib/libsqlite3.so.0.8.6)>> ==24971== by 0x4E6E71A: sqlite3BtreeCursor (in /gnu/store/6d4ihp7xbdh3a0ffbpm5n45q4v3w0l35-sqlite-3.19.3/lib/libsqlite3.so.0.8.6)>> ==24971== by 0x4EA9053: sqlite3VdbeExec (in /gnu/store/6d4ihp7xbdh3a0ffbpm5n45q4v3w0l35-sqlite-3.19.3/lib/libsqlite3.so.0.8.6)>> ==24971== by 0x4EB271E: sqlite3_step (in /gnu/store/6d4ihp7xbdh3a0ffbpm5n45q4v3w0l35-sqlite-3.19.3/lib/libsqlite3.so.0.8.6)>> ==24971== by 0x4EB34D1: sqlite3_exec (in /gnu/store/6d4ihp7xbdh3a0ffbpm5n45q4v3w0l35-sqlite-3.19.3/lib/libsqlite3.so.0.8.6)>> ==24971== by 0x426886: nix::LocalStore::openDB(bool) (local-store.cc:293)>> ==24971== by 0x42BEF4: nix::LocalStore::LocalStore(bool) (local-store.cc:169)>> ==24971== by 0x40A356: acceptConnection(int)::{lambda()#1}::operator()() const (nix-daemon.cc:755)>> ==24971== by 0x40E16B: std::_Function_handler<void (), acceptConnection(int)::{lambda()#1}>::_M_invoke(std::_Any_data const&) (functional:1871)>> I suspect these “possibly lost” reports are false alarms.>> Anyway, there’s no “invalid read” or “invalid write” report, which is> what we were looking for. :-/>> Thanks,> Ludo’.
So it seems that this issue has resolved itself. Notably, this bugdisappeared after a software update on the storage system that providesthe /gnu filesystem mount (NFS).
So this makes me think that it wasn't a problem in the guix-daemon.
Kind regards,Roel Janssen
?
Your comment

This issue is archived.

To comment on this conversation send email to 29676@debbugs.gnu.org