Xref: utzoo comp.unix.xenix:9301 comp.unix.questions:18746 comp.mail.uucp:3893
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!rex!mgse!fleet!mel
From: mel@fleet.UUCP (mel)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix,comp.unix.questions,comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Bug in SCO uucp system!
Keywords: uucp bug
Message-ID: <58@fleet.UUCP>
Date: 1 Jan 90 22:37:50 GMT
Organization: Fleet Parts & Equipment, Inc.
Lines: 60

I believe I found the source of the problem in SCO Xenix 2.3.2.

IT's A BUG IN SCO's CODE!!!

I've been experiencing failures in the uucp mail system as previously
posted.  As per SCO's documentation I have setup the following entry
in my "root" cron file. 

39,9 * * * * /bin/su uucp -c "/usr/lib/uucp/uudemon.hour" >/dev/null 2>&1

This runs the following shell script;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
$ 
$ more uudemon.hour
:
#      @(#) uudemon.hour 1.1 88/11/16 
#
#      Copyright (C) The Santa Cruz Operation, 1988.
#      This Module contains Proprietary Information of
#      The Santa Cruz Operation, Microsoft Corporation
#      and AT&T, and should be treated as Confidential.
#

/usr/lib/uucp/uusched &
/usr/lib/uucp/uuxqt &
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

As you can see two "programs" are run from this scrip.  When I ran the 
"uusched" from Xenix 2.3.2 in foreground I got the following result;

# ./uusched2.3.2
Memory fault

THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN WHEN I RUN THE OLD XENIX 2.3.1's "uusched" !!

And the two files are different as can be seen from the following
directory info comparison.

2.3.1 ver-> ---s--x--x   1 uucp     uucp     33724 Dec 30 18:13 uusched
2.3.2 ver-> ---s--x--x   1 uucp     uucp     40200 Nov 17  1988 uusched


Also left behind in "/usr/spool/uucp" when 2.3.2's "uusched" is the
following lock file.

-r--r--r--   1 uucp     uucp          11 Jan  1 15:55 LCK.S.0

Since I replaced 2.3.2's "uusched" with the one from "2.3.1" I've had no
problem.  I sure that SCO attempted to improve this program hence its
increase in size BUT looks like they've introduced some bug(s) in 
the 2.3.2 version.  I've done memory checks and can find no problem
there..  And judging from growing reports on the net I'm not alone
with this problem. 

Hope SCO reads this and can respond with a fix or work-a-round.

Mel Shear, Fleet Parts & Equipment;  Harahan, LA.
uucp:           rex!fleet!mel
bitnet:         mel%fleet@REX.CS.TULANE.EDU
internet:       mel%fleet@rex.cs.tulane.edu