On Sat, 2004-08-21 at 10:19, Tim Kientzle wrote: > Sean McNeil wrote: > >>> > >>>I just tried to unarchive a file that didn't exist and got a core dump: > > > > Here is a backtrace of the error: > > > > #0 0x0000000200926d7e in __vfprintf (fp=0x7fffffffe360, > > fmt0=0x4161d9 "Failed to open '%s'", ap=0x7fffffffe640) > > at /usr/src/lib/libc/stdio/vfprintf.c:1052 > > #1 0x00000002008c4006 in vsnprintf (str=0x32 <Address 0x32 out of bounds>, > > n=4284889, fmt=0x4161d9 "Failed to open '%s'", ap=0x7fffffffe640) > > at /usr/src/lib/libc/stdio/vsnprintf.c:75 > > #2 0x0000000000411478 in __archive_string_vsprintf (as=0x520240, > > fmt=0x4161d9 "Failed to open '%s'", ap=0x7fffffffe640) > > at /usr/src/lib/libarchive/archive_string_sprintf.c:60 > > > > Could be a compiler bug I suppose, but more likely I think it is this > > code: > > > > if (n == 0) { > > if (on > 0) > > *str = '\0'; > > str = dummy; > > n = 1; > > } > > > > in vsnprintf.c::vsnprintf. > > The code you've pointed to above concerns > me because of the part about: > if (n == 0) { > ... > n = 1; > } > That ain't right: If I told vsnprintf the buffer > size was zero, it should treat it as such. If I > meant "one", I would have said "one." > > On the other hand, the vsnprintf.3 man page > does explicitly state that "the output is always > null-terminated," which would preclude passing > a zero-length buffer, which is exactly what > libarchive is doing in this situation. It is > bogus, but at least it's documented bogosity. ;-) > > Please try the attached patch to libarchive/archive_string_sprintf.c > and let me know if it works for you. It simply > forces the target buffer to be allocated and thereby > avoids calling vsnprintf with a NULL buffer. > > Tim Kientzle > > ______________________________________________________________________ > Index: archive_string_sprintf.c > =================================================================== > RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/lib/libarchive/archive_string_sprintf.c,v > retrieving revision 1.4 > diff -u -r1.4 archive_string_sprintf.c > --- archive_string_sprintf.c 14 Aug 2004 03:45:45 -0000 1.4 > +++ archive_string_sprintf.c 21 Aug 2004 17:02:49 -0000 > _at__at_ -48,6 +48,9 _at__at_ > { > size_t l; > > + /* Make sure the target area is initialized. */ > + __archive_string_ensure(as, 64); > + > if (fmt == NULL) { > as->s[0] = 0; > return; I think what is happening is that the amd64 architecture passes a va_list by reference instead of by value. This is causing a side-effect within __vfprintf. To counter the side-effect, the following patch saves the ap and uses the copy for the second call to vsnprintf. Here is a patch that fixes my core dump: *** lib/libarchive/archive_string_sprintf.c.orig Fri Aug 13 20:45:45 2004--- lib/libarchive/archive_string_sprintf.c Tue Aug 24 10:37:02 2004 *************** __archive_string_vsprintf(struct archive *** 47,63 **** va_list ap) { size_t l; if (fmt == NULL) { as->s[0] = 0; return; } l = vsnprintf(as->s, as->buffer_length, fmt, ap); /* If output is bigger than the buffer, resize and try again. */ if (l+1 >= as->buffer_length) { __archive_string_ensure(as, l + 1); ! l = vsnprintf(as->s, as->buffer_length, fmt, ap); } as->length = l; } --- 47,65 ---- va_list ap) { size_t l; + va_list ap1; if (fmt == NULL) { as->s[0] = 0; return; } + va_copy(ap1,ap); l = vsnprintf(as->s, as->buffer_length, fmt, ap); /* If output is bigger than the buffer, resize and try again. */ if (l+1 >= as->buffer_length) { __archive_string_ensure(as, l + 1); ! l = vsnprintf(as->s, as->buffer_length, fmt, ap1); } as->length = l; }Received on Tue Aug 24 2004 - 15:40:22 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:08 UTC