5.3.1 and 5.2.1 broken!

Jaap Eldering jaap at jaapeldering.nl
Wed Nov 8 08:30:06 CET 2017

Hi Marc,

On 08/11/17 05:37, Marc Furon wrote:
> Jaap Eldering wrote:
>> This is to warn you that the 5.3.1 and 5.2.1 releases from a few
>> days ago are broken due to a regression bug in runguard:
>> https://github.com/DOMjudge/domjudge/issues/310
>> We're still investigating the precise cause before releasing a
>> fix. As a workaround we recommend using 5.3.0 instead of 5.3.1,
>> since the actual changes (besides this bug) are minimal. [...]
> Thank you for sending this alert.  I was in the process of installing
> 5.3.1 for the Southern California contest this weekend.  I will
> install 5.3.0 instead.
> Do you recommend I install the work-around patch for "runguard" on
> the judgehosts separately?

If you install 5.3.0, then you only need to apply


The revert of


is just undoing the commit that introduced the bug in 5.3.1.

However, I've only seen the problem that 9bad6d6dd02542ebb fixes occur on my own machine, so there's a high likelihood that it doesn't even affect you. If you want to test that, you should rejudge a contest (e.g. the test submissions for the demo contest) a couple of times (on a single judgehost) and see if you get a few TLEs instead of previous judgements. Alternatively, you can check if after judgement on the judgehost, there are still directories of the form domjudge/dj_cgroup_$PID under the cpuacct cgroup. That would typically be mounted under /sys/fs/cgroup/cpuacct, so the full path you're looking for is /sys/fs/cgroup/cpuacct/domjudge/dj_cgroup_$PID. If these directories exist after judgings are done, then you're most likely affected by the bug that 9bad6d6dd02542ebb fixes.

Unfortunately we don't have a good understanding yet what causes this regression, and how to fix it without reintroducing the original bug I fixed.


More information about the DOMjudge-devel mailing list