unexpunge segfaults with -l on some mailboxes

[Patrick Boutilier]

Bron Gondwana wrote:

<snip>
> Not so good.  Crap.  And this is on 2.3.13?  I don't see any changes
> touching that code in the post 2.3.13 changelogs...


Correct. We have been running 2.3.13 pretty much since it was released, 
2.3.12 before that, and 2.3.11 before that.

> 
>>> I'm tempted to protect the code from crashing though... we don't
>>> use unexpunge at FastMail, which is probably why I haven't already
>>> done so.
>>>
>>> Something like the attached should do it.  I'll test it more
>>> completely and commit it to CVS for 2.3.14 (since Ken hasn't
>>> cut a release candidate yet!)
>> Thanks for the patch.
> 
> Hey, don't use it though - it doesn't even compile!  It was a first
> draft.  I'll give you a real patch soon... been working on doing it
> _properly_ :)

Ok. :-)

> 
>> Would ipurge be causing the corruption? We currently purge e-mails older  
>> than 31 days on a weekly basis. I will turn that off for a bit (since  
>> disk space is not as much of an issue as it used to be) and see if the  
>> corruption returns.
> 
> Oooh... maybe.  I don't use ipurge.  Let me know what you find with
> turning it off.  I've never even _looked_ at that code.
> 

The more I think of it, the more I believe that ipurge will be the 
source of the problem. When I was manually checking for corruption (and 
reconstructing the mailboxes that had problems) there would be no 
corruption for 6 days. On the 7th day (always Sunday morning if I recall 
correctly) corruption would reappear in many mailboxes. As it turns out, 
our weekly ipurge ran on Saturday morning.

This will be real easy to test though. I will just run ipurge on a 
subfolder of my mailbox and see if it corrupts it. :-)

> Bron.