Demo Discussion
Forum Config Examples Contributions Vulnerabilities
  Discussion forum about ELOG, Page 723 of 807  Not logged in ELOG logo
IDdown Date Icon Author Author Email Category OS ELOG Version Subject
  717   Sat Oct 9 14:25:23 2004 Warning Mike Stolovemstolove@rogers.comBug reportLinux2.5.4-5deleting the sole single entry in log causes crash with xrealloc
When creating new logbooks, I will create a single entry to test the  
configuration. After revising the configuration I want to delete that  
single entry and create a new one based on the revised config.  
  
elogd will crash every time upon deleting that single entry with an  
xrealloc error. Here are the syslog entries leading up to the crash:  
  
Oct  9 08:09:41 obstin8 elogd[20614]:  
GET /Support/1?cmd=Delete&nextmsg=0&confirm=Yes HTTP/1.1^M Connection:  
Keep-Alive^M User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Konqueror/3.3; Linux)  
(KHTML, like Gecko)^M Referer: http://localhost:8080/Support/1?cmd=Delete^M  
Accept: text/html, image/jpeg, image/png, text/*, image/*, */*^M  
Accept-Encoding: x-gzip, x-deflate, gzip, deflate^M Accept-Charset:  
iso-8859-1, utf-8;q=0.5, *;q=0.5^M Accept-Language: en^M Host:  
localhost:8080^M Cookie: urem=0; upwd=dDRubjNyBDI=; unm=mstolove  
Oct  9 08:09:41 obstin8 elogd[20614]: xrealloc: not enough memory  
  
This is on a Slackware 10 box using kernel 2.6.7. Elogd is accessed  
directly, not through an Apache proxy.  
  716   Sat Oct 9 11:04:37 2004 Reply Gulzamanzamanilyas@gawab.com Windows Re: Windows XP Login Problem...
> >
  715   Thu Oct 7 11:01:00 2004 Reply Gulzamanzamanilyas@gawab.com Windows Re: Windows XP Login Problem...
> >
  714   Thu Oct 7 01:27:27 2004 Reply Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.ch Windows Re: Windows XP Login Problem...
> W
  713   Wed Oct 6 06:14:36 2004 Agree Steve Jonessteve.jones@freescale.comCommentAll2.5.4Re: Enhanced "eLog Version" Variable
No big deal - I looked at the code and you did a much more thorough job than I
would have done. Appreciate all of the hard work -- this product is masterful!

> Sorry for that. The idea is that the -4 is the minor number between releases
> (mainly for bug fixes and impatient users (;-) ). I accidently overwrote the
> -4 version several times when testing a new RPM building scheme, but I promise
> to take more care in the future (:-)))
> 
> Having the CVS revision in the executable is however a good idea and I will
> put it in.
> 
> > Stefan, would it be ok to add the "minor" revision level to the VERSION
> > constant?  I've been doing this after I download source just so I can keep
> > things straight, you keep cranking out versions ;->
> > 
> > EX: 
> > #define VERSION "2.5.4-4"
> > BECOMES
> > #define VERSION "2.5.4-4-1.483" or something like that?
> > 
> > Just a thought.
> > 
> > Thanks
  711   Wed Sep 29 01:28:22 2004 Reply Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.chQuestionLinux Re: Attachment file "" empty or not found
That problem has been fixed in 2.5.4-5
  710   Tue Sep 28 22:44:50 2004 Question roetsjim.roets@valero.comQuestionLinux Attachment file "" empty or not found
I am getting the following error message with version 2.5.4-4 when I try to
add a new entry to a log book.

Attachment file "" empty or not found

If I add the following line to me elogd.cfg I do not get the error, but will
not be able to use attachments.

Enable attachments = 0

I recently upgraded from version 2.2.5 which did not have the problem.  I
did not see anything in the changelog referencing this type of change to how
attachments are handled.

I there something I need to set in the config so that an attachment is not
expected every time a new entry is made?
  709   Fri Sep 24 22:37:01 2004 Reply Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.chRequestAll2.5.4Re: Enhanced "eLog Version" Variable
Sorry for that. The idea is that the -4 is the minor number between releases
(mainly for bug fixes and impatient users (;-) ). I accidently overwrote the
-4 version several times when testing a new RPM building scheme, but I promise
to take more care in the future (:-)))

Having the CVS revision in the executable is however a good idea and I will
put it in.

> Stefan, would it be ok to add the "minor" revision level to the VERSION
> constant?  I've been doing this after I download source just so I can keep
> things straight, you keep cranking out versions ;->
> 
> EX: 
> #define VERSION "2.5.4-4"
> BECOMES
> #define VERSION "2.5.4-4-1.483" or something like that?
> 
> Just a thought.
> 
> Thanks
ELOG V3.1.5-3fb85fa6