[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Should this be this way?
From: |
Linda Walsh |
Subject: |
Re: Should this be this way? |
Date: |
Fri, 01 Mar 2013 14:04:24 -0800 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.24) Gecko/20100228 Lightning/0.9 Thunderbird/2.0.0.24 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666 |
Chet Ramey wrote:
> Your vendor, which may be SuSE, has changed bash and shipped the modified
> version.
----
Supposedly this has to do with memory corruption problems in
4.2 and the "possibility" that it might come back...
Is this likely to be a problem?
Dr. Werner Fink wrote:
> The patch belongs to memory corruption
> ahd happen with several bug reports like:
>
> http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=382214
> http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=384175
>
> that is that after the siglongjmp() the bash had showed memory corruption.
> This seems to be fixed in bash 4.2 ... nevertheless it could come back
> again as memory management together with setjmp()/longjmp() or
> sigsetjmp()/siglongjmp() has to managed thorough to not run into the
> same problems as in the bugs above.
>
> This is the only reason why this patch is still alive. And yes I've read
> the thread http://www.mail-archive.com/bug-bash@gnu.org/msg12269.html
- Re: Should this be this way?,
Linda Walsh <=