[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGSZau2_v4ULktt_LZEhThSgKg06wPA=wddUOfzMqx6nH4un=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 16:26:13 +0900
From: plan9assembler <plan9assembler@...il.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: util-linux-2.23 mount segmentation fault error
Hi, thanks for the patch, i tested it.
it still gets same segfaults, same bt gdb result.
# gdb ./mount /dev/sda1 /mnt
r
bt
and it is clear to me that latest musl libc[2013/05/29] contain new bug,
because,
below abnormal operation never happened before. (musl version git pulled at
2013/05/03)
# ./mount /dev/sda1 /mnt
EXT4-fs (sda1): mounted filesystem with ordered data mode. Opts: (null)
< 30 - 40 seconds waiting without return to shell>
mount: /mnt: filesystem mounted, but mount(8) failedOperation timed out
// <-- this is weird.
#
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net> wrote:
> * plan9assembler <plan9assembler@...il.com> [2013-05-30 15:11:09 +0900]:
> > here is backtrace of gdb for "./mount /dev/sda1 /mnt"
> >
> > Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
> > 0x00007ffff7dd58fb in strlen () from /lib/ld-musl-x86_64.so.1
> > (gdb) at
> > #0 0x00007ffff7dd58fb in strlen () from /lib/ld-musl-x86_64.so.1
> > #1 0x00007ffff79614b6 in unmangle_string (s=0x6164732f7665642f <Address
> > 0x616732f7665642 out of bounds>) at ./include/mangle.h:17
> > #2 mnt_parse_table_line (s=0x7fffffffe640 "/dev/sda1 /mnt ext4 rw 0 0",
> > fs=0x608f00) at libmount/src/tab_parse.c:78
> > #3 mnt_table_parse_next (tb=tb@...ry=0x7ffff7ffb360, f=f@...ry
> =0x608a00,
> > fs=fs@...ry=0x608f00, filename=filename@...ry=0x7ffff7973e78
> "/etc/mtab",
> > nlines=nlines@...ry=0x7fffffffeab4) at at libmount/src/tab_parse.c:396
>
> yes this is the %ms issue i was talking about
>
> > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 7:17 AM, plan9assembler <
> plan9assembler@...il.com>wrote:
> > > correction:
> > >
> > > #if 1
> > > #define _IO(a,b) _IOC(0U,(a),(b),0) //?
> > > #define _IOW(a,b,c) _IOC(1U,(a),(b),sizeof(c)) //?
> > > #else
> > > #define _IO(a,b) _IOC(0,(a),(b),0) //ok
> > > #define _IOW(a,b,c) _IOC(1,(a),(b),sizeof(c)) //ok
> > > #endif
> > >
> > > #define _IOR(a,b,c) _IOC(2U,(a),(b),sizeof(c)) //ok
> > > - #define _IOW(a,b,c) _IOC(3U,(a),(b),sizeof(c)) //ok
> > > + #define _IOWR(a,b,c) _IOC(3U,(a),(b),sizeof(c)) //ok
>
> this does not make sense to me
>
> > > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 7:07 AM, plan9assembler <
> plan9assembler@...il.com>wrote:
> > >> could you send me the patch? i will test it.
>
> my super sophisticated patch has no warranty
> you could do better parsing or wait for musl to support %ms
>
>
Content of type "text/html" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
