emacs-bug-tracker
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[debbugs-tracker] bug#17010: closed (Bug#739752: coreutils: ln segfaults


From: GNU bug Tracking System
Subject: [debbugs-tracker] bug#17010: closed (Bug#739752: coreutils: ln segfaults when run with --relative and an empty target)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 16:28:02 +0000

Your message dated Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:27:24 -0700
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: bug#17010: Bug#739752: coreutils: ln segfaults when run 
with --relative and an empty target
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #17010,
regarding Bug#739752: coreutils: ln segfaults when run with --relative and an 
empty target
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
address@hidden)


-- 
17010: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=17010
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems
--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: Bug#739752: coreutils: ln segfaults when run with --relative and an empty target Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 18:42:30 -0700
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 1:57 AM, Erik Bernstein <address@hidden> wrote:
> Package: coreutils
> Version: 8.21-1
> Severity: normal
>
> Hi,
>
> when ln is run with --relative --symbolic and and empty string as the
> target, it ungracefully dies with a segmentation fault. The memory
> violation appears to happen in src/relpath.c:38 when the two input paths
> are checked for leading slashes:
>
>   if ((path1[1] == '/') != (path2[1] == '/'))
>
> How to reproduce:
> [1] Open a terminal
> [2] run: ln -sr '' foobar
>
> Result: segmentation fault  ln -sr '' foobar
> Expected result: Some kind of error message
...

Thank you for the bug report!
That also affected the very latest code in git.
Here is a patch:

Attachment: k.txt
Description: Text document


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: bug#17010: Bug#739752: coreutils: ln segfaults when run with --relative and an empty target Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:27:24 -0700
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:49 AM, Pádraig Brady <address@hidden> wrote:
...
> Hence since c_f_m() can validly fail even with CAN_MISSING,
> I agree your patch is correct.
>
> Please push.

Done.


--- End Message ---

reply via email to

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