bug-coreutils
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[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>





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]