On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 11:53:55PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Fri, 13 Oct 2006, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > > > MECHANISMS="pam" > > > > Thanks for the quick feedback. Does anyone on the list have any ideas > > on this? > > Certain pam modules leaks memory like a broken pipe. This is not something > that can be fixed by anything else, so forking saslauthd is nothing but a > workaround for that. > By forking, you mean forking processes, right? Not forking the code.
> Valgrind can tell you a *lot* more about this :-) > I'm sure that was meant as: "Valgrind can tell you a *lot* more about this AND I, Henrique, volunteer to investigate." Rather than: "Valgrind can tell you a *lot* more about this AND I, Henrique, have decided volunteer Roberto to investigate." :-) In either case, I am not too experienced with valgrind or other memory checking tools. My perspective is this: saslauthd can be no worse off than what we already have. Let's get the new upstream version into Debian and then later we can worry about tracking down memory leaks and getting those fixes passed back to upstream. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
