[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#13627: cut: Commit 06aeeec reintroduced SEG_FAULT
From: |
Marcel Boehme |
Subject: |
bug#13627: cut: Commit 06aeeec reintroduced SEG_FAULT |
Date: |
Mon, 4 Feb 2013 21:23:33 +0800 |
Dear Pádraig,
For completeness, would it be possible to reference the bug introducing
revision (ec48bead) in the commit message?
Otherwise, the commit looks good to me.
Best regards,
Marcel
On 4 Feb, 2013, at 7:52 PM, Pádraig Brady <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 02/04/2013 09:22 AM, Marcel Böhme wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> The current version of cut (after 6.12.2012) exposes a SEG_FAULT:
>> $echo 123 | cut --output-del="." -b-1,999999999-
>> How the commit introduces the bug:
>> Earlier, memory of length eol_start_length was allocated for the array
>> printable_field - if max_range_endpoint < eol_start_length. So the
>> access at eol_start_length would succeed.
>> Now, even if max_range_endpoint < eol_start_length, as long as
>> max_range_endpoint > 0, just like before, memory of length
>> max_range_endpoint is allocated for array printable_field which is
>> accessed "out-of-bounds" at eol_start_length in line 534.
>> Just for historical purposes:
>> Commit 7380cf79 introduces a SEG_FAULT on large open-ended ranges:
>> http://debbugs.gnu.org/7993.
>> This bug was fixed in Commit 2e636af1which itself introduces a memory
>> leak:
>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2012-12/msg00017.html.
>> This bug was fixed in Commit ec48bead which itself re-introduces the
>> SEG_FAULT: reported here.
>
> Nice one!
> The attached should fix it.
>
> thanks,
> Pádraig.
> <cut-fix-seg.patch>