bug-tar
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Bug-tar] Potential bug report


From: Xu Zhongxing
Subject: Re: [Bug-tar] Potential bug report
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 10:02:03 +0800 (CST)

The first one is different. I reported here: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13936

The upstream glibc and gnulib both fixed this bug. 

if (temp[0] == 'W' && temp[1] == ';')
      {
        char *nameend;
        const struct option *p;
        const struct option *pfound = NULL;
        int exact = 0;
        int ambig = 0;
        int indfound = 0;
        int option_index;

        if (longopts == NULL)
          goto no_longs;
At 2012-04-03 00:28:31,"Paul Eggert" <address@hidden> wrote:
>On 04/02/2012 06:10 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> We guarantee (via gnulib) that malloc(0) as used in tar will always
>> return a non-NULL pointer (except on ENOMEM error).  We see no reason to
>> change tar to guarantee a non-zero size request.
>
>Both reports seem to fall into this category, as near as I can
>tell from the DTD-free XML.



reply via email to

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